Section  xJL\.£-   13 


Nq, 


AN  OUTLINE  OF  THE  HISTORY 


LITEEATUEE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


AN   OUTLINE   OF  THE   HISTORY 

OF   THE 

LITERATURE  OE  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

WITH 

^CHEONOLOGIGAL  TABLES , 

FOR    THE 

HISTOEY    OF    THE     ISRAELITES 

AND  OTHER  AIDS  TO  THE 

EXPLANATION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


E.   KAUTZSCH, 

PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY   OF   HALLE. 


REPRINTED  FROM  THE  ''SUPPLEMENTS''  TO  THE  TRANSLATION 
OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  EDITED  BY  THE  AUTHOR. 


Translated  by  JOHN  TAYLOR,  d.lit. 


New  York  -.    G.  P.  PUTNAM'S   SONS 
London:    WILLIAMS  &  NORGATE 

1899. 


PREFACE. 


The  publisher  and  tlie  editor  of  "  Die  Heilige  Sclirift  des 
A.  T.''   (edited  by  E.    Kautzscli,  with   the    co-operation    of 
Professors   Gntlie,    Kampliausen,    Kittel,    Marti^    Rothstein, 
Kiietsclii,  Ryssel^  Seigfried  and   Socin ;  second  edition,  with 
many  corrections,   Freiburg    and   Leipzig,   1896),  have  been 
repeatedly  urged  to  print  separately  these  '^  Supplements " 
to  the  work,    and  the  appeal   has  been  specially  supported 
from  England.     They  have   not  acceded  to  it  without  careful 
consideration.     With  the  exception  of  minor  corrections  and 
additions  (especially  of  references  to  the  most  recent  litera- 
ture),  together  with  an  alteration  in  the  arrangement,  this 
separate  edition  differs  from  the  last  impression  only  in  the 
following  points.     The  division  of  the  six  periods  into  numerous 
smaller  sections  with  special  titles,  and  the  employment  of 
headlines  to  each  page  has  made  it  easier  to  trace  the  Outline 
of  the  History   of    Old    Testament  Literature  (p.  1  ff.)-     On 
p.  93  a  discussion  of  the  Song  of  Moses   (Deut.  xxxii.)  has 
been  inserted,  and  at  p.  97  f.   a  notice  of  the  so-called  Ebed- 
Jahweh  poems.     From  p.  120  onwards  repeated  reference  has 


VI  PREFACE. 

been  made  to  Prof.  Ed.  Meyer's  importaDt  work_,  "  Die 
Entsteliung  des  Judentbums  '^  (Halle,  189G). 

On  pp.  225-247,  there  is  an  addition  to  the  matter  previously 
contained  in  the  ''  Supplements,"  in  the  form  of  a  Survey  of 
the  constituents  of  the  Sources  of  all  the  historical  books 
from  Genesis  to  2  Kings,  together  with  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 
This  was  requisite  because  we  could  not  take  it  for  granted 
that  the  readers  of  our  Eeprint  would  use  along  with  it  the 
Translation  (see  above),  in  which  the  various  documents  are 
distinguished  by  marginal  letters.  The  Survey  now^  added 
is  naturally  in  general  agreement  with  those  assumptions  of 
literary  criticism  on  which  the  Translation  and  the  Outline  are 
based.  But  the  renowned  weighing  of  the  critical  problems 
and  the  employment  of  contributions  to  the  analysis  of  the 
sources  made  by  others  since  1894,  have  led  to  corrections  of 
all  kinds,  and  in  some  cases  (especially  with  regard  to  the 
Third  Book  of  Moses)  to  more  precise  results  concerning 
certain  strata  of  the  Sources. 

"With  regard  to  the  standpoint  here  occupied  in  literary 
criticism  and  theology  I  must  again  refer  to  the  concluding 
words  of  the  *'  Outline  "  (p.  164  ff.) .  Nothing  can  alter  the  fact 
that  scientific  problems,  once  recognized  as  such,  are  not 
stilled  until  they  have  been  solved,  or  until,  at  least,  the  limits 
within  which  they  can  be  solved  have  been  determined.  That 
is  true  of  the  problems  of  theological  science  and  conse- 
quently of  those  of  Biblical  Investigation,  as  well  as  of  all 
others,  and  one  of  the  signs  of  a  church's  vitality  is  that  it 
leaves  honest  inquiry  unhampered  and  has  confidence  in  the 


rREPACE.  Vll 

power  of  Trutlij  whicli  will  trlumpli  in  the  cikI.  But  a  cliiircli 
wliicli  cainiot  bear  to  liavo  tlie  traditions  of  its  faith 
scientifically  tested,  and  fancies  that  by  majority-resolutions 
in  synods  it  can  arbitrarily  maintain  a  view  of  Scripture  which 
contradicts  Scripture  itself,  pronounces  its  own  sentence.  If 
people  wish  to  tie  men's  consciences  for  ever  to  traditional 
views  they  must  be  able  to  meet  the  objections  raised  against 
the  tradition.  Attempts  to  do  this  have  not  been  wanting', 
and  we  shall  always  welcome  them,  so  long  as  they  recognize 
facts  and  are  content  to  moderate  the  excess  of  critical  zeal 
and  to  put  down  an  unseemly  kind  of  discussion  of  the 
questions  involved  in  Biblical  inquiry.  But  some  facts  have 
been  finally  settled,  such  as  the  construction  of  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  Historical  Books  out  of  different  documents,  some 
of  them  varying  widely  from  each  other.  And  if  we  are 
required,  even  with  reference  to  them,  to  destroy  our  sense 
of  truth  and  give  the  lie  to  indisputable  results  for  the 
sake  of  groundless  prejudices,  we  protest,  in  the  name  of 
Evangelical  liberty,  and  that  the  more  vigorously  seeing  that 
all  previous  attempts  to  cover  such  a  demand  with  a  show  of 
erudition  have  failed  utterly  and  miserably. 

E.  KAUTZSCH. 

Halle,  February,  1897. 


TRANSLATOR'S    NOTE. 


The  Rev.  J.  H.  Stowell,  The  Manse^  Liglitcliffe,  has  most 
kindly  placed  his  MS.  translation  of  the  ^''Abriss^^  at  my 
disposal  during  the  revision  of  the  proof-sheets  of  this 
volume.  This  does  not  involve  him  in  any  responsibility  for 
the  rendering,  but  it  obliges  me  to  cordial  thanks. 

J.T, 

November  11th,  1898. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Preface "^^ 

I.  History  of   ihe  Litfraturk  of  thk  Oi-d  Testament. 

§  1.   The  Fre-monarchic  Feriod. 

1.  The  Relics  of  ancient  popular  poetry. 

(a)  The  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jahweh — The  Triumphal 
Song  of  "Them  that  speak  in  Proverbs" — The 
Song  of  the  Well— The  Book  of  the  Upright  Ones  I 

(6)  The  Song  of  Lamech— The  passage  concerning 
the  Holy  Ark— Exod.  xvii.  16— The  Song  of 
Deborah — Jotham's  Fable -^ 

2.  The    Relics    of    ancient    stories    and     legends — The 

literary  works  ascribed  to  Moses       ....         5 

§  2.   The  Feriod  of  the  Undivided  Monarchy. 

1.  David's  Elegies  on  Saul  and  Abner — Possible  Psalms 

of  David — Nathan's  Parable— Solomon's  Speech  in 
dedication  of  the  Temple— Possible  remnants  of 
Solomon's  Writings  .  .10 

2.  Other  possible  literary  memorials  of  the  period    of 

David  and  Solomon  (especially  the  "  Blessing  of 
Jacob"  and  the  original  form  of  the  Balaam- 
Discourses)       .....•••       1^ 

h 


K  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

§  3.   The  Period  of  the  Divided  Monarchy  until  the  Destruction 
of  Samaria. 

1.  General — The  "  Hero- Stories  "  of  the  Book  of  Judges 

— The  "Jerusalem-Source"  in  the  Second  Book  of 
Samuel  —  The  "  Saul-Stories  "  and  the  "  David- 
Stories"   .........       18 

2.  The  Beginnings  of  the  Legal   Literature :  The  Book 

of  the  Covenant         .......       29 

3.  The  Jahwistic  Historical   Work — On  the  History  of 

Pentateuch  Criticism        ......       81 

4.  Other    Relics    of    the    Literature    of   the   ninth    and 

eighth  centuries  (1  Sam.  iv.  1  if.)  —  "The  Blessing 
of  Moses  " — The  Mirror  of  the  Prophets — 1  Kings 
XX.  22,  &c 40 

5.  The  Histoi  ical  Work  of  the  older  Elohist — The  more 

recent  Biographies  of  Samuel  and  Saul    ...       43 

6.  General  Remarks  on  Prophetism         ....       46 

7.  The  earliest    Literary    Prophets :  Isa.    xv.  f.,    Amos, 

Hosea       .........       50 

8.  Isaiah — Micah .53 

§  4.  From  the  Destruction  of  Samaria  to  the  Exile. 

1.  Nahum — Zephaniah .  59 

2.  The  Historical  Work  of  the  Jehovist — Deuteronomy  .  61 

3.  The  Book  of  Kings 68 

4.  Habakkuk' — Jeremiah 74 

§  5.   The  Period  of  the  Exile. 

1.  Ezekiel .         .         .86 

2.  Lamentations  .  .  .91 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 


XI 


PAGE 

3.  The  Close  of  the  Denteronomistic  Historical  Work  94 

4.  Deutro-Isaiah  (and  Trito-Jsaiah)          ....  96 

5.  Isa.  xxxiv.  f .,  xiii.  f.,  xxi.  1-10     .....  99 

6.  The  Law  of  Holiness 100 

§  6.  The  Post- Exilic  Period. 

1.  Haggai  and  Zechaiiah  -Malachi          ....  103 

2.  The  Priests'  Code    and  the   Law  Book   of   Ezra— The 

Close  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  Historical  Work 

extending  from  Gen.  i.  to  2  Kings  xxv.     .         .          .  106 

3.  The  Work  of  the   Chronicler   (Ezra,  Neliemiah,  and 

Chronicles)        ........  121 

4.  The  Book  of  Ruth— The  Book  of  Esther    .         .         .129 

5.  The    After-Growths    of    the    Prophetic     Literature 

(Obadiah,  Joel,  Jonah,  Tsa.  xxiv.  to  xxvii.,  Zechariah 

ix.-xiv.) — The  Close  of  the  Canon  of  the  Prophets   .  132 

6.  The  Book  of  Daniel 138 

7.  The  Poetical  Books. 

(a)  The  Psalter 141 

(b)  The  Song  of  Songs 148 

8.  The  Monuments  of  the  Wisdom  Literature.  * 

(n)   Proverbs  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .151 

(b)  The  Book  of  Job l:>4 

(c)  Ecclesiastes         .......  162 

Conclusion 164 

IT.  Chronological  Tables  for  the  History  of  the  Israel- 
ites    FROM    Moses    to     the    end    of    the     Second 

Century,  b.c 167 


Xll  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

III.  Measures  and  Weights,  Money,  Computation  of  Time 

IN  the  Old  Testament. 

1.  Measures  and  Weights         .....     206 

2.  Money 210 

3.  Computation  of  Time 212 

IV.  List  of   Old  Testament   Pkoper  Names,  accompanied 

WITH   an   exact   Transliteration   of   their  Hebrew 
forms .         .        y         .216 

V.  Survey  of  the  Composition  from  different  Documents 

OF  several  Books  of  the  Old  Testament      .         .         .     225 

Index 248 


I. 
HISTOIIY  OF  THE  LITERATURE 


OF 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


§  1.  THE  PEE-MONARCHIC  TERIOD. 

1.  The  Relics  of  Ancient  Popular  Poetry. 

a.  The  Book  of  the  "Wars  of  Jahweh.— The  Triumphal  Song- 
of  "Them  that  speak  in  Proverbs."— The  Song  of  the 
'WelL— The  Book  of  the  Upright  Ones. 

TN  Israel^  as  in  other  nations^  the  earliest  literary  period 
-■-  was  preceded  by  one  of  song  and  legend.  The  condi- 
tions on  which,  in  every  age,  the  appearance  of  a  real 
literature  depend — above  all,  the  wide  diffusion  of  the  arts 
of  writing  and  reading,  the  settled  life  and  comparative 
prosperity  of  the  people — did  not  exist  in  Israel  till  near  the 
end  of  the  so-called  age  of  the  Judges,  certainly  not  during 
the  Journey  through  the  Desert  or  whilst  the  tribes  were 
incessantly  straggling  for  existence  after  the  immigration  into 
Canaa'U. 

We  do  not  mean  to  denv  that  in  these  earlier  times  souofs 
and  legends  were  eagerly  repeated.  But  the  subjects  they 
dealt  with  can  only  be  determined  from  the  subsequent  litera- 
ture, and  that  in  two  w^ays  :  first,  from  the  actual  records  of 
later  date,  containing  the  remnants  of  the  old  popular  poetry, 
as  these  could  be  gathered  from  the  mouth  of  the  people  or  of 
the  professional  singer ;  secondlj',  from  the  free  adaptations 

1 


2  §    1.    THE    rRE-MONARCHIC    PERIOD. 

and  developments  of  ancient  songs  and  legends  wliicli  are 
also  preserved  in  the  subsequent  literature. 

As  to  the  first  kind,  the  actual  records  of  ancient  popular 
jooetry,  we  have  at  least  two  explicit  testimonies  that  in  very 
early  times  attention  was  paid  in  Israel  to  the  collection  of 
such  reliques.  At  Num.  xxi.  14,  the  "  Book  of  the  Wars  of 
Jahweh"  is  quoted  as  the  source  of  a  very  obscure  frag- 
ment of  song  given  there  The  piean  of  "  Them  that 
speak  in  proverbs/'  on  the  overthrow  of  the  Moabites, 
Num.  xxi.  27 If.,  is  possibly  taken  from  the  same  book; 
perhaps  also  the  so-called  *'  Song  of  the  Well/'  v.  17  f.,  and 
some  other  fragments,  such  as  the  groundwork  of  Exod.  xv. 
Iff.,  and  the  ''Song  of  Miriam,''  of  which  Exod.  xv.  21, 
appears  to  have  given  only  the  beginning.  All  thes3  traces 
point  to  a  collection  of  songs  celebrating  the  heroic  deeds  of  the 
people,  and  especially  of  Jahweh,  as  the  God  of  War,  and  the 
real  commander  in  the  battles  which  had  to  be  fought  for  the 
conquest  and  retention  of  the  land  which  He  had  promised. 
Another  collection,  ''  The  Book  of  the  Upright  Ones " 
(literally,  ''of  the  Upright  One")  is  mentioned  twice.  The 
precise  meaning  of  the  title  is  disputable.  It  either  designates 
songs  about  brave  and  pious  members  of  the  nation,  or  else 
"of  the  Upright  Ones"  is  a  designation  of  the  people  of 
Israel  itelf  (hence,  "The  Book  of  Israel '').  Both  passages 
put  it  beyond  doubt  that  here  again  a  collection  of  songs  is 
meant :  at  Joshua  x.  12  f .  it  is  quoted  as  the  source  of  two 
verses  in  which  Joshua  celebrates  Israel's  complete  victory 
over  the  Amorites  ;  at  2  Sam.  i.  IS  as  the  source  of  David's 
elegy  on  Saul  and  Jonathan.  The  latter  example  shows  that 
the  collection  contained  artistically  cultivated  poetry  as  well  as 
folk-songs,  and  these  belonging  to  an  age  when  the  founda- 
tions of  a  real  literature  had  already  been  laid.  Indeed,  if  it 
be  a  correct  conjecture  that  in  the  original  text  of  1  Kings 
viii.  13  (on  which  cf.  below,  p.  13)  ''  The  Book  of  the  Upright 
Ones  "  and  not "  The  Book  of  Songs  "  is  quoted,  the  collection 
cannot  have  been  arranged  earlier  than  the  time  of  Solomon, 

When  we  turn  to  the  remains  of  the  popular  poetry  which 


THE  RELICS  OF  ANCIENT  TOrULAR  TOETRY.  3 

were  subsequently  written  down,  we  cannot  sufficiently 
regret  tliat  so  few  fragments  have  been  preserved,  and  these, 
in  part,  badly  disfigured  and  hard  to  interpret.  This  is  due 
to  a  twofold  cause.  The  oldest  connected  presentations  of  the 
history  of  the  peo]ilc  could  ]:)oint  to  those  collections  of 
ancient  song  as  accessible  to  every  one.  A  brief  quotation 
sufficed  to  recall  the  whole  of  the  passage  in  question  as  it 
stood  in  "  The  Book  of  Songs."  Besides  this,  there  is  another 
circumstance  on  which  sufficient  cm]ihasis  cannot  be  laid  for 
the  understanding  of  Old  Testament  literature.  TLe  com- 
position, and  certainly  the  final  collection  and  canonization  of 
-this  literature  were  effected,  one  might  say,  exclusively  from 
the  religious  standpoint,  in  the  interest  of  religion.  What 
wonder  that,  on  the  whole,  when  the  final  redaction  was 
made,  everything  was  omitted — and,  indeed,  expunged — which 
seemed  to  serve  only  for  the  satisfaction  of  worldly  curiosity 
.or  actually  to  excite  a  carnal  national  conceit? 


b.  The  Song-  of  Lamech.  —  The  Passage  concerning-  the 
Holy  Ark.— Exod.  xvii.  16.— The  Song  of  Deborah.— 
Jotham's  Fable. 

In  addition  to  the  fragments  already  mentioned  (Exod.  xv. 
1  ff.  and  21  ;  Num.  xxi.  14  f.,  17  f.,  and  27  ff.^Joshua  x.  12  f.), 
the  following  fragments  and  sections  must  be  assigned  to  the 
pre-monarchic  time  : — 

1.  The  so-called  ^^  Song  of  Lamech"  (Gen.  iv.  23  f.), 
apparently  an  ancient  folk-song,  uttering  an  arrogant  boast  of 
the  possession  of  weapons  and  constant  readiness  for  bloody 
revenge.  This  little  three-verse  song  is  already  stamped 
with  all  the  marks  of  Hebrew  poetry — precise  parallelism 
between  the  two  halves  of  each  verse,  exalted,  rhythmica 
language,  and  the  use  of  special  words  belonging  to  the 
dialect  of  poetry. 

2.  The  poetic  fragment,  Num.  x.  35  f .  (taken,  perhaps,  from 
the  ^^Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jahweh^O*     The  great  antiquity  of 

1   * 


4  §   1.    THE    PEE-MOXARCHIC    PERIOD. 

this  verse  is  clearly  seen  from  the  manner  in  wliicli  tlie  holy 
ark  is  spoken  of  as  a  pledge,  not  to  say  a  representation,  of 
the  personal  presence  of  Jahweh  —  an  idea  which  we  shall 
find  supported  by  other  ancient  witnesses. 

3.  The  poetic  fragment,  Exod.  xvii.  6  :  of  this  we  shall 
speak  again  later. 

4.  The  so-called  ^^  Song  of  Deborah"  (Judges  v.  2  ff.). 
The  ascription  of  this  "Song  to  Deborah"  (at  v.  l,in  con- 
junction with  Barak  !)  may  be  due  simply  to  a  misunder- 
standing of  V.  7  (^Hill  I  arose,  &c."  instead  of  "till  thou 
arosest ;"  or,  w^itli  the  Greek  Bible,  "  till  she  arose  ").  In  point 
of  fact,  the  view  that  she  was  the  author  is  excluded  by  the- 
address  to  Deborah  in  v.  12.  But  it  has  never  been  denied  that 
this  is  a  poem  of  priceless  worth,  almost  contemporaneous  with 
the  events  it  describes,  flowing  out  of  impressions  experienced 
by  and  still  vivid  to  the  writer  himself.  Doubtless  the  text 
has  suffered  severely,  as  is  usually  the  case  with  such  remnants 
from  the  pre-literary  period  :  in  fact,  v.  8-14  are  nothing  but 
a  heap  of  puzzling  ruins.  But  the  portion  which  can  certainly 
be  understood  fully  justifies  the  verdict  that  this  is  genuine, 
splendid  poetry,  which  enables  us  to  conjecture  how  much 
that  was  equally  important  has  vanished  without  leaving- 
a  trace.  The  insight,  however,  which  the  song  gives  us  into 
the  historical,  and  particularly  the  religious,  conditions  of  that 
far-off  century  'is  of  infinitely  more  importance  than  its 
aesthetic  value.  We  are  looking  on  a  time  when  the  people  are 
severely  oppressed,  reduced  to  forty  thousand  capable  of 
bearing  arms,  but  possessing  none  (v.  8).  The  roads  are 
deserted  because  no  man  is  sure  of  his  life  (v.  G),  till  Deborah, 
by  inspiriting  speech,  and  Barak,  by  courageous  action,  rouse 
their  own  and  the  adjacent  tribes  to  a  fight  for  freedom. 
Obviously  it  is  still  a  time  of  confusion  and  disintegration. 
Only  the  northern  tribes,  who  are  immediately  threatened  by 
the  Canaanites,  with  their  nearest  relatives,  bestir  themselves 
for  the  fight.  Strange  to  say,  there  is  not  a  word  of  Judah. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  scorn  poured  on  Eeuben,  who 
merely    gave    the    matter    serious    consideration    and   then 


THE    RELICS    OF    ANCIENT    STORIES    AND    LEGENDS.  5 

preferred  to  listen  to  the  sound  of  tlie  shepherd's  pipes, 
shows  that  something  better  might  have  been  expected  from 
liim — that  it  was  his  duty  to  think  of  the  distress  of  his 
compatriots.  He  was  connected  with  them  by  a  tie  which 
ought  to  sliow  itself  stronger  than  any  human  covenant  or 
agreement — tlie  worship  of  the  same  God.  The  fight  was  for 
the  victory  of  His  side  :  His  was  the  glory  of  the  victory 
gained  (v.  2,  3,  31).  In  His  awful  majesty  He  left  Mount 
Sinai,  His  holy  dwelling-place,  to  appear  in  person  on  tlie 
field  of  battle  (v.  4  f.),  and  His  curse  deservedly  falls  upon 
the  city  (v.  23),  which  "  came  not  to  tlie  lielp  of  the  Lord 
amongst  the  mighty,^^  the  Lord  who  is  the  champion  of  His 
people. 

5.  Jotham's  Fable  (Judges  ix.  8  fF.)  is  of  quite  another 
character,  but  an  equally  striking  and  indubitably  genuine 
product  of  the  pre-monarchic  time.  The  technical  structure 
of  the  fable  is  here  found  in  such  perfection  and  imbued  with 
so  fine  a  sarcasm  as  again  to  suggest  the  conjecture  that  this 
form  of  composition  must  have  been  long  and  diligently 
cultivated. 


2.  The  Relics  op  Ancient  Stories  and  Legends. — The 

Literary  Works  ascribed  to  Moses 

{esj)ecially  Exod.  xvii.  14/'.,  the  Booh  of  the  Covenant  and  the 

Ten  Commandments). 

As  a  second  source  for  ascertaining  the  traditions  which  come 
from  the  pre-literary  period  of  the  people  we  have  referred  to 
the  adaptations  and  developments  of  ancient  stories  and 
legends  which  are  preserved — often  in  duplicate — in  the 
literature  proper.  It  belongs  to  the  nature  of  the  case  that 
we  here  move  on  far  less  certain  ground  than  before.  That  is 
to  say,  in  any  individual  instance  it  is  difficult  to  decide  which 
traits  of  a  narrative  are  derived  from  the  original  tradition, 
and  which  from  the  later  development,  or  possibly  even  from 
very  late  reflection.     But  we  are  not  without   criteria  which 


6  §     1.    THE    PRE-MOXAECHIC    PERIOD. 

make  it  possible  to  decide  up  to  a  certain  point.  Not  seldom 
in  the  extant  prose  narratives  tliere  are  unmistakable  echoes 
of  the  early  poetical  form.  This  is  indubitably  the  case 
where  the  poetical  exemplar  itself  has  been  preserved,  as  at 
Exod.  xiv.  29,  along  with  XV.  8;  Joshua  x.  lob,  along  with  12b  f.; 
Judges  iv.  17  ff.,  along  with  v.  24  ff.  And  in  other  instances 
traces  of  such  poetical  exemplars  are  not  lacking:  thus  at 
Exod.  xiv.  24  if.,  on  the  occasion  when  Pharaoh  was  destroyed; 
at  Joshua  iii.  16,  when  the  Jordan  stood  still;  or  vi.  20,  when 
the  walls  of  Jericho  fell  at  the  war-cry  and  sound  of  the 
trumpet.  In  other  passages  the  great  antiquity  of  the  narra- 
tive is  evinced  by  its  correspondence  with  the  primeval 
traditions  of  other  nations  (Gen.  iv.  20  ff.),  the  use  of  names 
that  are  inexplicable  or  have  disappeared  elsewhere  (Naamah, 
V.  22),  above  all,  by  the  intermingling  of  a  mythological 
element  (Gen.  vi.  1  ff.,  xxix.  10,  xxxii.  25  if.)  Not  unfre- 
quently  there  is  a  connection  with  primeval  local  traditions 
(as  at  Gen.  xix.)  or  histoi^ical  recollections  (as  at  Gen.  xxxiv. 
25 ff.,  confirmed  by  xlix.  5 if.).  Hence  we  must  ascribe  to  an 
actual  tradition,  handed  down  from  the  pre-literary  period, 
the  greatest  part  of  the  matter  furnished  by  the  ancient 
documentary  sources  (see  below)  in  the  Pentateuch  and 
Joshua,  although  the  final  development  of  the  patriarchal 
narratives  within  the  limits  of  a  fixed  genealogical  system 
may  not  have  been  earlier  than  the  period  when  literature 
was  cultivated. 

In  conclusion,  we  must  not  shrink  from  answering  a  question 
which  will  have  occurred  ere  now  to  many  readers.  What 
about  the  evidences  for  writing's  oriofinatino'  with  Moses  him- 
self  ?  Are  not  these  latter  to  be  regarded  as  the  foundation 
and  starting-point  of  the  entire  literature  of  Israel  ? 

We  may  here  take  it  for  granted  that  the  Pentateuch  in  its 
present  form  raises  no  claim,  either  by  a  title  or  a  signature 
or  in  any  other  way,  to  be,  in  its  entirety,  a  work  of  Moses. 
Not  till  the  later,  post-exilic  period,  and  especially  in  the 
Chronicles,  do  we  meet  with  this  idea.  On  the  other  hand 
the  Pentateuch  no   doubt  states,  in  four  places,    that  Moses 


THE    LITERAEY    WORKS    ASCEIBED    TO    MOSES.  / 

xvrote  something.  At  Dent.  xxxi.  9,  24,  tlie  Denteronomic 
writer^  a  redactor  living  in  the  exile,  relates  that  the  law  of 
Deuteronomy  was  written  by  Moses,  and  a  post-exilic  redactor, 
at  Num.  xxxiii.  2,  asserts  that  he  recorded  the  names  of  the 
Stations  in  the  Desert.  Seeing,  however,  that  Deuteronomy 
cannot  have  originated  before  the  seventh  century  and  that 
Num.  xxxiii.  in  all  probability  belongs  to  the  most  recent 
portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  statements  mentioned  above 
must  not  be  taken  into  account  here. 

The  two  other  passages  are  of  a  different  kind.  The 
narrator  of  Exod.  xvii.  14  ff.,  must  have  found  the  express 
tradition  (possibly  in  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jahweh)  that  the 
Amalekites'  treachery  and  probably  the  threat  quoted  at 
V.  16  was  recorded  by  ]\ loses  himself  in  a  book  (more  correctly, 
perhaps,  *^  ou  a  leaf,^^  according  to  Num.  v.  2o,  where 
precisely  the  same  expression  is  found).  But  we  cannot 
ascertain  anything  more  precise  respecting  the  scope  and  the 
phraseology  of  this  exceptional  writing.  The  narrator  of  Exod. 
xxiv.  4  ff.,  must  also  have  been  acquainted  with  a  definite 
tradition  that  Moses  himself  wrote  a  "  Book  of  the  Law  of  the 
Covenant/^  But  it  is  quite  another  question  how  much  of 
the  phraseology  of  this  so-called  ^'  Book  of  the  Covenant  ^^ 
has  been  preserved  in  our  present  Pentateuch.  The  Ten 
Commandments  used  naturally  to  be  thought  of  first  and 
foremost  as  the  basis  of  this  Book  of  the  Covenant,  although  the 
writing  down  of  them  is  ascribed  at  Exod.  xxiv.  12,  xxxiv.  1, 
not  to  Moses  but  to  God  Himself.  But  if  we  admit  that  the 
very  words  of  the  Ten  Commandments  were  given  in  Moses' 
Book  of  the  Covenant  and  in  distinct  documentary  form  on  the 
Two  Tables  of  Stone,  how  are  we  then  to  explain  the  origin 
of  two  forms  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  those  of  Exod.  xx. 
and  Deut.  v.,  which,  with  all  their  agreement,  are  yet  so 
diverse  ?  It  would,  in  any  case,  have  to  be  admitted  that  the 
original  text,  especially  in  the  First  Table,  had  been  somewhat 
freely  handled.  The  difficulty  becomes  still  greater  if  the 
opinion  is  correct  which  Goethe  advanced  and  the  majority 
of  students    now    share.     According   to   it  '^The   Covenant- 


8  §   1.    THE    PRE-MONARCHIC    PERIOD. 

Commandments,  the  Ten  Commandments/^  wliicli  Moses  is 
bidden  to  write  (Exod.  xxxiv.  27)  are  the  preceding  statutes,  v. 
li-2G,  which  in  many  ways  vary  considerably  from  Exod.  xx. 
(as  the  older,  so-called  Jahwistic,  Decalogue  contrasted  with  the 
Elohistic) .  The  passage,  Exod.  xxxiv.  27  ff.,  does  indeed  admit 
of  another  explanation.  Originally,  in  a  different  context, 
it  may  have  referred  to  our  Ten  Commandments  ;  but  the 
redactor  did  not  wish  to  repeat  these  in  the  present  context. 
Even  then  the  question  concerning  the  original  Decalogue  is 
still  a  complicated  one  and  cannot  yet  be  settled.* 

Besides  the  Decalogue,  however,  the  narrator  of  Exod.  xxiv. 
o  ff.  (cf.  V.  3  w4th  xxi.  1)  evidently  has  in  view  the  ordinances  of 
worship  and  justice  in  chaps,  xx.  24 — xxiii.  19,  and  recent  writers 
are  accustomed  to  limit  to  this  section  the  name  "  Book  of  the 
Covenant,^'  as  the  title  of  the  oldest  compilation  of  laws.  We 
may  be  sure  that  there  are  later  additions  here  as  elsewhere 
(most  of  them  recognizable  by  the  use  of  the  plural  form  of 
address).  But,  apart  from  these,  weight}^  considerations  have 
been  adduced  against  the  direct  derivation  of  all  these  laws 
from  the  hand  of  Moses.  A  large  number  of  them  (especially 
xxii.  4  flf.,  20,  24,  28,  xxiii.  9  ff.)  are  seen  at  a  glance  to  be 
a  codification  of  customary  laws  and  maxims  which  could  not 
have  developed  till  the  joeople  had  long  been  settled  in  the 
land,  cultivating  its  fields  and  vineyards. 

The  result  is  that  whilst  nothing  can  be  said  against  the 
idea  of  Moses  having  written  some  documents,  we  must  not 
hope  to  be  able  to  designate  any  we  possess  as  certainly 
Mosaic  in  their  j^hraseoloy.  Obviously  this  does  not  preclude 
the  existence  of  many  genuine  historical  reminiscences  in  the 
traditions  which  deal  with  the  motives  for  the  work  of  Moses, 
the  work  itself,  and  its  fundamental  significance  for  the  whole 
history  of  Israel.     No  nation  ever  gratuitously  invented  the 

*  On  this  controversy,  besides  Dillmaxn's  exhaustive  Kommentar  zu  den 
Biichern  Exodus  und  Leviticus  (Leipzig,  1880),  cf,  Eothsteix,  DasBundesbuch. 
Halle,  1888  :  Budde,  Bemerkungen  zum  Bundesbuch  (ZATW,  1891,  p.  99  tf.)  : 
Bantsch,  Das  Bundesbuch,  Exod.  xx.  22,  xxiii.  33.  Halle,  1892:  Meisnek,  Der 
Dekalog  I  (der  Dek.  im  Hexateuch).     Halle,  1893. 


THE    LITERARY    WORKS    ASCRIBED    TO    MOSES.  i? 

report  that  it  had  been  ignomiuiously  enslaved  b}^  another  : 
none  ever  forgot  the  days  of  its  deliverance.  And  so  through 
all  the  centuries  there  survived  in  Israel  the  inextinguishable 
recollection  that  it  was  once  delivered  out  of  Egypt,  the  house 
•of  bondage,  by  Jahweh,  the  God  of  its  fathers,  with  a  strong 
hand  and  outstretched  arm;  that  especially  at  the  passage  of 
the  Red  Sea  it  experienced  the  mighty  protection  of  its  God. 
And  Jahweh  employed  as  His  instrument  a  man  the  like  of 
whom  was  never  ao-ain  found.  That  man  had  tauo-ht  his 
people  to  recognize  as  its  highest  glory  the  being  called  the 
people  of  this  God,  as  its  supreme  joy  the  praising  Him  and 
worshipping  Him  with  sacrifices  and  offerings.  And  if  the 
oldest  tradition  regards  it  as  self-evident  (Judges  xvii.  13) 
that  the  priestly  service  of  a  member  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  is 
far  preferable  to  any  other,  this  can  only  be  explained  by  07ie 
fact :  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  considered  to  be  the  only  possessor 
of  the  genuine  knowledge,  derived  from  Moses  himself,  of 
the  proper  way  to  worship  the  God  of  Israel,  to  administer 
justice  in  His  name,  and,  above  all,  in  special  questions  and 
concerns  to  ascertain  His  will  by  means  of  the  holy  lot 
(the  "  Urim  and  Thummim^^). 


§  2.  THE  PERIOD   OF  THE  MDIYIDED 
MONARCHY. 

1.  David^s   Elegies  on   Saul  and  Abner. — Possible   Psalms-  | 

OF  David. — Nathan\s  Parable. — Solomon's  Speech  in  j 

Dedication   of   the    Temple. — Possible    Remnants    of  | 

Solomonic  Writings.  ! 

An  event  is   said  to  liave  happened  about  tlie  middle  of  the-        ' 
period  of  the  Judges   (Judges  viii.   14)  which  enables  us  to        ' 
conclude  that  the  art  of  writing  had  been  gradually  dissemi-^ 
nated  amongst  the  common  people.     It  is,  therefore^  easy  to        i 
understand  that  it  has  been  thought  necessary  to  date  the        ' 
beginnings  of  a  real  literature  not  later  than  this  period_,  the        | 
second  half  of  the  time  of  the  Judges.     It  must  be  acknow- 
ledged possible  that  as  early  as  this,  perhaps  at  sanctuaries 
which  had  long  been  famous,  such  as  those  at  Shiloh  and  Bethel,        i 
amongst  a  hereditary  priesthood  of  old  standing,  the  writing 
down  of  ancient  songs  or  of  the  histories  of  these  sanctuaries 
was  taken  in  hand.     But  no  actual  proof  can  be  adduced.     It        j 
would  rather  appear  that  we  must  come  down  to  the  time  of 
David  for  the  writino-  out  of  the  products  of  those  earlier  days. 
If  David  commanded    (2    Sam.  i.  18)    that  the  elegy  on  Saul        | 
and  Jonathan  should  be  taught  to  the  Judahites  this  certainly        I 
does  not  preclude  his  having  written  it  and  caused  copies  to        | 
be  circulated.     But  the  narrator  seems  only  to  have  known  of        ' 
its  having  been  written  out  in  the  (later)  "  Book  of  the  Upright       ' 
Ones.'' 

The  doubts  occasionally  expressed  as  to  the  genuineness 
of  the   Song  *  are  now  set  at  rest.     It  has  ever  been  justly        | 

*  It.s  erroneous  designation  as  "  Song  of  the  Bow,"  Avas  occasioned  by 
the  word  "bow"  having  been  brought  in  from  another  context  to  the  original 
text  of  2  Sam.  i.  18  ("And  he  commanded  to  teach  [it]  to  the  children  of 
Judah  ").     This  was  then  taken  to  be  the  name  of  the  song  that  followed. 


II 

recognized  as  a  real  pearl  of  Hebrew  poetry.  And  this  is  true 
both  of  its  poetical  form  and  of  its  contents,  at  once  so  simple 
and  so  stirring.  The  almost  identical  lament  at  the  beginning 
and  at  the  end  serve  as  a  framework  for  six  strophes,  each 
consisting  of  two  verses,  with  tAvo  clauses  each.  The  fifth  of 
them  corresponds  with  the  first  in  fine  contrast  ;  the  second 
and  fourth  utter  the  actual  dirge  for  the  dead ;  the  third  sings 
the  praise  of  the  fallen  heroes.  But  besides  the  considera- 
tions which  affect  all  the  people  alike,  the  poet  has  a  personal 
right  to  assert  that  his  pain  is  deeper  than  any  others  feeL 
This  23ain  he  expresses  in  his  address  to  the  friend  who  had 
been  so  devoted  to  him,  whose  love  to  him  was  more  wonder- 
ful than  the  love  of  women.  In  the  first  strophe  there  is  only 
a  distant  intimation  of  the  gloomy  political  background  :  grief 
for  those  who  had  died  heroically  on  behalf  of  their  people 
causes  the  abiding  distress  of  the  people  to  be  for  the  moment 
forgotten.  The  religious  element  is  quite  absent  from  the- 
sonof.  But  Avhat  a  monument  has  David  here  raised  to  the 
king  from  whom  he  suffered  so  much,  to  the  heroic  youth  at 
his  side,  and  not  less,  to  himself ! 

No  source  is  mentioned  for  David's  elegy  over  Abner 
(2  Sam.  iii.  33  f.).  This  does  not  give  the  slightest  occasion 
to  doubt  its  genuineness.  The  only  question  is  whether,  in 
this  single  and  unquestionably  complete  strophe  we  have  the 
whole  lament  and  not  merely  a  fragment  (?  the  opening). 

Tradition,  as  it  subsequently  meets  us,  especially  in  the- 
Chroniclcs  and  in  the  titles  of  seventy-three  *  psalms,  makes 
David  also  the  founder  and  chief  representative  of  sacred 
song,  of  psalmody.  It  has  been  said  that  this  tradition 
could  not  have  appeared  in  such  strength  and  definite- 
ness  if  it  had  been  without  historical  foundation.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  two  elegies  are  sufficient  evidences  of 
David's  poetical  talents,  and  it  is  not  intrinsically  incredible 
that  so  zealous  a  worshipper  of  Jahweh,  the,  national  God, 
may  have  treated  of  spiritual  things.     But  the  fact  that  the 

*  Eighty-three  in  the  Greek  Bible. 


12  §  2.    THE    TERIOD    OF    THE    UNDIVIDED    MOXAECHY. 

title,  "  Of  David/*''  is  prefixed  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  to  many 
Avliicli  are  demonstrably  exilic,  or  post-exilic,  compels  us  to 
disregard  tliose  titles  entirely.  This  does  not  preclude  the 
possibility  of  genuinely  Davidic  songs,  or  fragments  of  them, 
having  been  adopted  from  some  pre-exilic  book  of  songs 
into  the  later  post-exilic  collection.  But,  alas!  we  have  no 
standard  by  which  to  recognize  them  as  Davidic.  The  really 
strong  historical  tradition  knows  David,  apart  from  the  above- 
mentioned  elegies,  onl}^  as  a  skilful  harper  (1  Sam.  xvi.  18,  &c.), 
perhaps  also  as  an  inventor  of  melodies,  or  (according  to 
another  interpretation  of  Amos  vi.  5),*  of  musical  instruments. 
In  any  case,  the  latter  passage  does  not  indicate  that  he  was 
a  master  of  sacred  song.  It  is  true  that,  in  the  Appendices 
to  the  Second  Book  of  Samuel,  two  songs  are  expressly 
ascribed  to  David  (chap,  xxii.,  identical  with  Ps.  xviii.,  and 
chap,  xxiii.  1-7).  Numerous  passages  in  the  psalm  (especially 
V.  23  ff.,  31,  50  f.)  compel  us  to  admit  that  at  most  its  present 
form  may  have  arisen  from  the  expansion  and  adaptation  of 
a  Davidic  nucleus  into  a  congregational  h3aTin.  But  the  very 
first  verse  of  the  so-called  "  Last  Words  ''  lies  open  to  grave 
suspicion,  partly  because  it  is  an  obvious  imitation  of  the 
Sayings  of  Balaam  (Num.  xxiv.  3,  5),  partly  because  it 
makes  David  call  himself  "  The  Darling  of  the  hymns  of 
Israel."  And  this  first  verse  is  so  entirely  one  in  spirit  and 
style  with  those  that  follow,  and  can  so  ill  be  spared  as  the 
presupposition  to  v.  2,  that  we  have  no  right  to  pronounce  it 
an  interpolation  for  the  sake  of  being  able  to  derive  v.  2-7 
directly  from  David.  The  whole  can  only  be  understood  as  a 
free,  poetic  reproduction  of  one  of  David^s  utterances.  Nathan's 
Parable  (2  Sam.  xii.  1-4),  on  the  other  hand,  must  be  con- 
sidered as  certainly  a  remnant  from  David's  time.  The  technical 
form  of  the  parable  here,  like  that  of  the  fable  at  Judges  ix. 
8  &.J  appears  in  such  perfection  as  to  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  it  had  been  long  and  abundantly  cultivated. 

In  his  speech  dedicatory  of  the  Temple,  1  Kings  viii.  12f.,  we 

*  Cf.  Expository  Times,  April,  1898.     Tr. 


POSSIBLE    EEMNANTS    OF    SOLOMONIC    WKITINGS.  13 

have  an  authentic  monument  of  the  time  of  Solomon.  Accordino- 
to  tlie  Greek  translation  (the  so-called  vSeptuagiut),  it  was 
extracted  from  the  "Book  of  Songs/'  Probably  wo  ought  to 
follow  another  reading,  "The  Book  of  the  Upright '';  on  this 
cf.  above,  p.  2. 

But  the  attempt  has  also  been  made  to  find  a  reference  to  a 
copious  literature  from  the  hand  of  Solomon  at  1  Kings  v.  0  ff.^ 
This  passage  speaks,  in  the  first  place,  of  Solomon^s  extra- 
ordinarily great  wisdom  in  all  departments.  He  is  further 
praised  as  surpassing  the  wisdom  of  the  dwellers  in  the  East 
and  the  Egyptians.  This  seems  to  point  to  astrological  (or  even 
astronomical  ?)  and  medical  knowledge,  as  well  as  to  the  arts 
of  magic  and  esoteric  lore.  Yet  all  these  are  pure  conjectures, 
especially  as  we  know  nothing  about  the  wise  men  of 
old  time  who  are  mentioned  byname  at  v.  11.  Nothing  is 
said  about  a  literature  on  the  above-named  subjects ;  at  all 
events,  the  very  remotest  trace  of  it  has  disappeared.  But 
when  it  is  added:  "He  spoke  3000  proverbs,  and  his  songs 
were  1005,^'  it  seems  as  though  an  extensive  Solomonic  litera- 
ture in  another  department  is  implied.  Even  an  approximate 
number  like  3000,  to  say  nothing  of  a  definite  one,  like  1005, 
could  not  be  given  unless  the  proverbs  and  songs  were  in 
writing.  AVas  the  narrator,  then,  acquainted  with  a  Solo- 
monic Book  of  Proverbs  and  Songs  of  this  compass  ?  Or 
had  these  numbers  gradually  established  themselves  in  the 
legend  of  the  wise  King  ?  The  expression  which  immediatel}- 
follows  :  "  He  spake  of  trees,  &c.,''  appears  again  to  know 
only  of  Solomon\s  wisdom  as  manifested  in  speech.  As  to 
the  sayings  concerning  all  plants  and  animals,  we  must  evi- 
dently think  not  of  scientific  disquisitions,  but  only  of  such 
matters  as  thoughtful  reflections  on  Nature,  or  evidences  of 
attentive  observation  of  it.  However  that  may  be,  we  should 
at  best  possess  but  scanty  remains  of  a  literature  of  this 
kind,  in  case  the  passages  on  this  subject  in  the  "  Proverbs 
of   Solomon  '^  were  to  be  ascribed   to   him.     We  must  here 

*  English  Versior.s,  1  Kins;s  iv.  29  ff. 


14  §  2.    THE    TERIOD    OF    THE    UNDIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

entirely  ignore  tlie  psalms  attributed  to  liim  (Ixxii.,  a  prayer 
for  tlie  King,  and  cxxvii.,  in  wliicli  the  ''Miouse/'  v.  1,  lias 
.been  in  muclitoo  mecbanical  away  taken  to  mean  the  temple). 


2.  Other  Possible  Literary  Memorials  of  the  Period  of 
David  and  Solomon  (especially  the  '^Blessing  of 
Jacob  "  and  the  original  form  of  the  Balaam- 
Discourses). 

If,  after  all,  that  we  cannot  prove  ancient  Hebrew 
literature  to  have  been  considerably  enriched  with  actual 
luritings  by  David  and  Solomon,  it  is,  nevertheless,  a  fair 
question  whether  other  literary  monuments  must  not  be 
assigned  to  the  period  of  David  and  Solomon.  And,  in  fact, 
the  conditions  for  the  rise  of  a  real  literature  must  have  existed 
in  abundance  under  David,  to  say  nothing  of  Solomon.  The 
previous  isolation  of  the  tribes,  which  still  continued  during 
the  tribal  sovereignty  of  Saul,  gave  place,  after  the  conclusion 
of  the  Civil  War,  to  a  strong  confederation  of  the  whole  people 
under  the  mighty  and  prosperous  sceptre  of  David.  The  great 
martial  successes  of  the  King,  in  which  the  whole  Nation  had 
a  glorious  share,  as  well  as  the  continued  domination  over  the 
surrounding  peoples,  their  tormentors  of  old,  must  have  aroused 
a  national  enthusiasm  such  as  had  not  been  known  before. 
Moreover,  the  time  of  Solomon  was  rich  in  new  motive 
powers :  a  brilliant  court ;  a  splendid  royal  sanctuarj^,  the 
seat  of  that  venerable  palladium,  the  ark  of  Jahweh,  served 
by  priests  who  were  numbered  amongst  the  principal  officials 
of  the  King;  manifold  contact  and  active  commerce  with 
neighbouring  States  so  highly  cultivated  as  Egypt  and  Tyre, 
nay,  even  (through  the  voyages  to  Ophir)  with  the  wonder- 
lands of  the  South  and  the  East.  Must  not  all  this  have 
impelled  men,  amidst  the  blessings  of  a  long-continued  peace, 
to  become  fully  conscious  of  what  had  been  so  painfully  won, 
to  look  back  from  the  height  they  had  climbed  to  the  battles 


LITERARY  MEMORIALS  OF  THE  PERIOD  OF  DAVJD  AND  SOLOMON.     15 

fiud  victories  wliicli  had  made  sucli  an  ascent  possible^  and  to 
fix  tlie  still  vivid  recollection  of  them  in  word  and  writing  for 
the  generations  to  come  ? 

The  extent  to  which  this  was  actually  done  cannot  be 
strictl}^  demonstrated.  But  wc  possess  a  number  of  monu- 
ments, against  the  placing  of  which,  at  least  as  early  as 
Solomon's  time,  no  valid  objection  can  be  brought.  Hence 
it  is  best  to  discuss  them  here,  although  we  do  not  thus  deny 
the  possibility  of  a  later  origin.  Leaving  aside  the  collec- 
tions of  songs  already  mentioned  (p.  1  f.),  the  ^^  Book  of  the 
Upright,'^  which  in  all  probability  is  Judahite,  and  the  "Book 
of  the  Wars  of  Jahweh,"  we  here  reckon  the  two  poetical 
productions,  the  "Blessing  of  Jacob''  (Gen.  xlix.  1-27),  and 
the  original  form  of  the  Balaam-Discourses  (Num.  xxiii.  7 — 
xxiv.  19). 

Under  the  form  of  predictions  uttered  by  the  dying 
patriarch,  the  so-called  "  Blessing  of  Jacob ''  convej^s  partly 
ji  bitter  reproach  and  partly  eulogies  and  promises  of  blessing 
to  all  the  twelve  tribes.  But  the  fiction  is  not  so  closely 
adhered  to  as  to  prevent  the  actual  standpoint  of  the  poet 
amidst  the  tribes  long-settled  in  Canaan  from  asserting 
itself  repeatedly  and  frankly.  This  is  especially  seen  in  the 
reference  made  to  certain  historical  events ;  at  v.  15  and 
.23  ff.  such  events  are  not  predicted,  but  narrated  (in  the 
so-called  Impcrfedum  Consecutiviim). 

The  sayings  are  in  any  case  ancient  and  highly  poetic,  and 
the  following  reasons  favour  the  placing  of  them  in  the  age  of 
David  and  Solomon.  The  outrage  on  the  Shechemites  by 
Simeon  and  Levi,  of  which  a  notice  has  also  been  preserved 
in  Gen.  xxxiv.  seems  to  be  still  remembered  pretty  vividly. 
At  all  events  it  is  still  clearly  known  that  this  w^as  the  cause 
of  the  almost  total  destruction  of  the  two  tribes  which  were 
formerly  of  equal  rank  with  the  rest.  But  it  is  ver}^  strange 
that  the  poet  was  only  aware  of  the  curse  which  doomed  Levi 
to  be  scattered  in  Israel,  and  says  not  a  word  about  the  future 
siofnificance  of  the  tribe  as  heir  of  the  traditions  handed 
dow^n  from  Moses.      Was  this  possible  in  an  age  wdicn  the 


16  §  2.  THE    PERIOD    OF   THE    UNDIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

descendants  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  liad  for  a  long  time,  and 
in  higli  repute  officiated  at  the  Eoyal  Sanctuary  of  Jerusalem  ? 
On  the  other  hand,  v.  8-12  obviously  refer  to  David's  heroic- 
deeds  and  to  the  hegemony  of  Jadah,  founded  by  him.  If 
Joseph  also  (as  consisting  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh)  is- 
enthusiastically  extolled  and  blessed,  this  can  best  be  under^ 
stood  of  a  time  when  all  tribal  feuds  had  died  out  and  one 
and  the  same  poet  could  equally  rejoice  in  the  fame  and 
felicity  of  all.  For  the  theory  that  either  the  saying  about 
Judah,  or  that  about  Joseph,  Avas  subsequently  added  breaks 
down  in  face  of  the  fact  that  the  speeches  were  evidently 
twelve  in  number  at  the  first.  To  prove  the  later  origin  of 
the  w^hole,  in  the  time  of  the  divided  kingdom,  v.  23  f.  has 
been  specially  appealed  to  as  an  incidental  reference  to  the 
heroic  defence  made  by  the  northern  kingdom  against  the- 
Aramjeans  in  the  ninth  century.  But  the  expression  sounds 
much  too  general  to  prevent  our  thinking  just  as  naturally  of 
glorious  fights  waged  in  earlier  times  by  the  tribes  of  Joseph. 
The  designation  of  Joseph  as  '^  Prince  amongst  his  brethren  '^ 
(v.  26)  tells  far  more  heavily  against  its  being  dated  in  the 
age  of  David  and  Solomon.  If  the  word  rendered  '^'^  Prince  '^ 
must  necessarily  mean  "  AYearer  of  the  Diadem,''  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  expression,  the  reference  to  the  Ephraimite 
kingdom  founded  by  Jeroboam  I.  would  be  indisputable. 
But  this  is  not  absolutely  certain,  and  the  saying  concerning 
Levi  would  be  far  more  surprising  in  the  ninth  century 
than  in  the  time  of  Solomon. 

In  an  almost  higher  degree  even  than  the  ^^  Blessing  of 
Jacob  "  are  the  four  first  Balaam-Discourses  pervaded  with 
national  enthusiasm,  the  sense  of  a  mighty  association  of  the 
people,  and,  above  all,  exultant  gladness,  because  of  the 
victories  won  and  the  overflowing  blessings  of  Jahweh. 
The  reference  to  David's  victories  and  conquests  at  xxiv. 
17  ff.  is  unmistakable.  The  religious  element  —  which 
in  Gen.  xlix.,  apart  from  the  ejaculation,  v.  18,  only 
appears  in  the  saying  concerning  Joseph,  v.  24  f. — comes 
prominently     into      the     foreground     in     the     Balaam-Dis- 


LITERARY  MEilORIALS  OF  THE  PERIOD  OF  DAVID  AND  SOLO:\ION.    17 

courses.  As  to  the  rest,  if  we  were  willing  to  assign  merely 
tlie  nucleus  of  tlicse  Discourses  to  the  age  of  Solomon  wo 
should  be  taking  our  stand  on  an  almost  universally  admitted 
fact.  Chap,  xxiii.  formed  in  the  main  a  portion  of  the  old 
Elohistic  source,  chap.  xxiv.  1-19,  of  the  Jahwistic  one. 
And  since  the  contents  of  the  Discourses  in  the  two  chapters, 
with  all  their  divergence,  exhibit  striking  points  of  contact 
(cf.  especially  xxiii.  22  and  xxiv.  8),  we  can  scarcely  doubt 
that  chaps,  xxiii.  and  xiv.  supply  two  different  versions  of 
the  same  ancient  poem.  An  exact  restoration  of  it  is 
naturally  impossible  now,  but  chap.  xxiv.  must  be  nearer 
the  original  form  than  chap.  xxi.  (cf.  particularly  the  bold 
figure  in  v.  8b). 


§  3.  THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  DIVIDED  MOX- 
AECHY  UNTIL  THE  DESTRUCTION  OF 
SAMARIA. 

1.  General. — The  ''"Hero-Stories"  of  the  Book  of  Judges.. 
— The  Jerusalem-Source  m  the  Second  Book  of 
Samuel. — The  "  Saul-Stories  "  and  the  "  Dayid- 
Stortes." 

The  division  of  the  kingdom,  wliicli  occnrred  about  933,. 
was  of  profound  significance_,  not  only  for  tlie  external 
fortunes  of  tlie  two  halves  of  tlie  kingdom,  but  also  for  the 
development  of  the  literature.  A  vigorous  beginning  was 
made  under  David  by  the  centralization  of  military  affairs  and 
of  the  government  in  Jerusalem,  the  new  capital.  And  the 
measures  taken  by  Solomon  did  their  part  in  enhancing 
the  splendour  of  this  central  point  at  the  expense  of  the 
remainder  of  the  kingdom.  A  farther  advance  on  this  road 
would  have  necessarily  issued  in  all  the  other  tribes  sinking 
into  insignificant  appendages  to  Judah,  and  all  the  ancient 
sanctuaries  being  eventually  thrown  quite  into  the  shade  by 
the  splendour  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  The  division  of 
the  kingdom  restored  their  former  self-consciousness  to  the 
northern  tribes,  especially  to  what  had  now  become  the  royal 
tribe  of  Ephraim  :  ancient  and  glorious  recollections  started 
into  life  again,  and  demanded  to  be  put  in  writing  for  the 
quickening  of  patriotic  feeling.  But,  above  all,  Jeroboam  I. 
was  careful  to  create  centres  for  a  national  worship  of  Jahweh 
by  raising  the  long-famous  holy  places  of  Bethel  and  Dan  to 
the  position  of  royal  sanctuaries  (Amos  vii.  ]3).  And  thus 
too  Avere  provided  central  points  where  a  higher  culture  could 
be  developed  in  tlie  midst  of  an  honoured  priesthood.  In 
setting   up  the  golden    calves    Jeroboam    doubtless    did   but 


GENERAL.  19 

revive  n  form  of  Jaliweli  worship  wliicli  was  of  old  standing", 
but  prohibited  in  the  worship  at  Jerusalem.  We  nowhere  read 
that  this  worship  itself  excited  the  indignation  of  an  Elijah  or 
Eh"shn,  and  their  circles.  At  all  events  the  dwellers  in  the 
northern  kingdom  boldly  claimed  to  belong  to  the  "  People- 
of  Jahweh."  Indeed,  the  total  transfer  of  the  ancient  name 
of  honour,  Israel,  to  the  northern  kingdom,  shows  plainly 
that  it  considered  itself  the  true  heir,  not  only  of  the  power, 
but  also  of  the  glory  of  the  whole  people.  This  is  expressed 
in  extremely  drastic  fashion  in  King  Joash's  fable  of  the 
thistle  and  the  cedar  on  Lebanon  (2  Kings  xiv.  9  ff.). 
And  the  Singer  of  the  Blessing  of  Moses  knows  of  no 
higher  aspiration  for  Judah  than  that  ^'  Jahweh  may  bring 
him  back  to  his  people^'  (Dent,  xxxiii.  7). 

Judah,  in  fact,  with  its  small  and  sparsely  populated 
territory  was  almost  powerless  compared  with  Israel.  But 
its  continuance,  nay,  its  ever-growing  significance  for  things 
spiritual,  and  for  the  history  of  religion,  was  assured  by 
privileges  which  were  entirely  denied  to  the  mightier  Israel. 
We  cannot,  indeed,  follow  the  current  opinion  which  reckons 
a  purer  form  of  Jahweh-worship  amongst  the  number.  The 
belief  that  the  holy  ark  was  a  visible  representation  of 
Jahweh  must  for  a  long  time  have  been  a  grossly  materialistic 
one  in  popular  circles.  A  trace  of  this  idea  has  been  pre- 
served in  an  addition  to  Jeremiah  (iii.  16  fF.),  and,  uninten- 
tionally, even  in  the  so-called  Priests'  Code  (Lev.  xvi.  2,  &c.)- 
And  although  King  Asa  interfered  with  his  mother's  idolatry 
(1  Kings  XV.  13)  this  did  not  prevent  people  even  in  Judah 
from  worshipping  Jahweh  under  the  form  of  an  image. 
Isaiah  had  to  declaim  warmly  against  this  error  (ii.  8,. 
18,  20  ;  x.  11 ;  xxxi.  7).  It  must  also  probably  be  attributed 
to  its  influence  that  H«ezekiah  at  length  broke  in  pieces  the 
brazen  serpent  to  which  "  unto  those  days  the  children  of 
Israel  did  burn  incense"  (2  Kings  xviii.  4). 

But  in  three  points  Judah  actually  had  the  advantage  over 
Israel  :  Jerusalem,  the  temple  of  Solomon,  and  the  uninter- 
rupted rule  of  the  Davidic  dynasty.      The  greatest  and  most 

2  ^ 


20  §  3.    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

glorious  memories  of  the  people  continued  to  be  connected  with. 
the  time  when  David,  after  overthrowing  all  surrounding  foes, 
was  enthroned  in  tlie  tower  of  Zion  and  received  the  homage 
of  distant  kings.  And  the  temple  of  Solomon  was  still  the 
most  splendid  sanctuary  that  had  ever  been  reared  for  the 
God  of  Israel :  the  holy  ark  wdiich  it  enshrined  was  a  monu- 
ment of  that  great  age  when  all  Israel  was  led  from  victory 
to  victory  by  Jaliweh  as  the  God  of  Battles.  The  works  of 
art  in  the  temple  and  the  palace  were  looked  on  as  a  kind  of 
wonder  of  the  world.  Of  Solomon's  throne  the  saying  ran 
"There  was  not  the  like  made  in  any  kingdom''  (1  Kings 
X.  20).  And  as  to  the  stability  of  the  dynasty  and  all  the 
contributions  which  that  can  make  to  the  external 
prosperity  and  the  spiritual  advancement  of  a  people,  we  need 
only  point  too?zefact.  Compared  with  the  twelve  descendants 
of  David  who  reigned  on  Zion  down  to  722,  Israel  had  nine 
dynasties,  with  seventeen  kings.  Seven  of  the  latter  were 
murdered  by  their  successors  :  Zimri  burned  himself  and  the 
palace  threatened  by  Omri.  In  view  of  such  facts  we  under- 
stand how  the  Judahite  view  of  history  would  not  admit  the 
truth  of  the  Israelite  idea  that  the  division  of  the  kingdom 
was  a  schism  of  Judah  from  the  united  people.  It  could 
see  nothing  there  but  a  revolt  of  Israel  from  Judah  and  the 
house  of  David  (Isa.  vii.  17,  livings  xii.  19).  Connected  with 
all  this  is  another  fact,  weightier  than  anything  hitherto 
mentioned.  Judah  alone  could  become  the  soil  from  which  the 
idea  might  spring  which  has  developed  the  strongest  motive 
power  in  the  religion  of  Israel,  the  expectation  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom.  This  was  chiefly  thought  of,  at  all  events  in  the 
earlier  times,  as  a  renewal  of  the  Davidic  kingdom  under  the 
sceptre  of  one  of  his  descendants,  sent  by  God  and  specially 
equipped  by  Him :  hence  the  continuance  of  the  Davidic 
dynasty  is  its  indispensable  condition. 

Before  discussing  the  literary  products  of  the  two  kingdoms 
it  must  be  premiied  that  until  we  are  far  advanced  in  the 
eighth  century  it  is  impossible  to  date  any  monument 
'precisely.      In  most  cases  a  latitude  of  a  hundred  years   or 


OF    THE    BOOK    OF    JUDGES.  21 

more  must  be  allowed.  The  only  poliifc  we  can  determine 
with  some  certainty  is  the  sequence  of  the  sources  which  have 
been  worked  up  into  our  present  historical  books.  And^  to 
judge  from  what  we  have  before  us_,  literary  zeal  seems  to 
have  applied  itself  lirst  to  historical  writing.  In  tlie  northern 
kingdom  it  was  naturally  the  reminiscences  of  the  pre- 
monarchic  time,  connected  with  their  native  soil,  which 
seemed  most  worthy  of  record  :  in  Judah  the  memories  of  the 
person  and  house  of  the  great  founder  of  the  Davidic  dynasty. 
Thus  there  arose  in  Ephraim  the  most  ancient  stratum  of  the 
narratives  handed  down  in  our  Book  of  Judges  (designated 
in  the  ^'  Survey/^  at  the  close  of  this  book,  i/ and  H^,  i.e., 
Hero-Stories,  and  in  the  appendices,  chap,  xvii.-xxi.,  N  and 
N.^),  and  in  Judah  the  oldest  stratum  of  the  narratives  about 
David  which  we  find  in  the  Second  Book  of  Samuel  (desig- 
nated in  the  ^'  Survey  ^^  Je,  i.e.,  Jerusalem-Source"^). 

The  '^  Hcro-Storiea ''  are  exclusively  occupied  with  the 
so-called  Greater  Judges.  Ehud  (iii.  15  ff.),  Deborah  and  Barak 
(iv.  4  ff.),  Gideon  (chaps,  vi.-viii.,  to  which  the  history  of 
Abimelech  in  chap,  ix.,  a  remarkably  vivid  and  ancient 
narrative,  forms  a  kind  of  appendix),  Jephthah  (xi.-xii.  G), 
and  Samson  (xiii.-xvi.).  In  their  present  form  they  are 
furnished  with  many  additions  and  placed  in  a  framework 
which  is  entirely  foreign  to  them.  But  in  almost  every  case 
the  analysis  can  be  made  with  certainty  although  the  connec- 
tion thus  reached  may  not  invariably  be  without  gaps.  No  one 
will  be  likely  to  assert  that  in  these  narratives  we  possess  all 
the  traditions  of  the  age  of  the  Judges.     The  interest  taken  in 


*  Besides  Wellhausen's  liioneer  work  in  the  Fourth  Edition  of 
Bleek's  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (BerUn,  1878),  p.  181  ff.  (reprinted 
with  additions  in  "Die  Koniposition  des  Hexateuchs  und  der  historischen 
Biicher  des  Alten  Testaments,"  Berlin,  1889),  as  well  as  the  parts  treating  of 
this  subject  in  Stade's  Geschichte  des  Volks  Israel  (Berlin,  1881  ff.)  and 
Kittlkl's  Geschichte  der  Hebriier  (Gotha,  1888)  [English  Translation,  Williams 
and  Norgate],  use  has  been  especially  made  of  Budde's  Die  Biicher  Bichter  und 
Samuel,  ihre  Quellen  und  ihr  Aufbau  (Giessen,  IHIIO)  in  the  determination  and 
critical  examination  of  the  various  strata  in  the  historical  books. 


22  §  3.    THE    PERIOD    OP    THE    DIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

the  altar  of  Jeliovah- Shalom  at  Ophrali  (vi.  2i-),  and  in  the 
worship  of  the  image  of  Jahweh  made  out  of  the  gold  taken  as 
booty  (viii.  24-2  7a)  seems  to  have  been  the  main  reason  why 
the  Gideon-narratives  were  admitted.  The  following  points 
are  especially  to  be  regarded  as  reliable  criteria  of  the  old 
narratives  in  contrast  with  the  numerous  glosses  and  expan- 
sions. The  later  redactors  (in  the  ^'  Survey  "  Rl  and  i?)  took 
the  so-called  Judges  to  be  in  the  strict  sense  rulers  of  the  whole 
nation  :  hence  the  universal  concluding  formula,  not  missing 
even  in  the  case  of  a  Samson,  "and  he  judged  {i.e.,  ruled) 
Israel  .  .  .  years/^  On  the  other  hand  the  old  narratives 
know  the  so-called  Judges  simply  as  heroes  who  in  a  special 
calamity  were  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  placed  them- 
selves at  the  head  of  their  own  tribe  (like  Jephthah)  or  of 
a  part  thereof  (as  in  the  older  form  of  the  Gideon-narrative, 
.see  below)  or,  at  most,  of  a  few  tribes  similarly  threatened 
(as  Ehud,  Deborah  and  Barak)  :  after  performing  deeds  of 
■deliverance  they  returned  to  their  former  station,  like  the 
dukes  of  German  antiquity.  Gideon  seems  to  have  been  the 
onl}^  exception  ;  seeing  that  the  dominion  of  his  seventy  sons  is 
mentioned  at  ix.  2,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Gideon  himself  must 
liave  set  up  a  kind  of  tribal  kingshijD.  On  the  other  hand  the 
Samson-narratives  leave  a  distinct  impression  that  he  always 
carried  on  the  fight  with  the  Philistines  with  his  own  hand. 
At  least  the  narrative  xv.  9  &.  shows  that  he  had  absolutely 
no  support  from  his  fellow-countrymen  in  Judah. 

The  religious  element  is  by  no  means  absent  from  the 
ancient  narratives.  But  in  contrast  with  the  so-called  theo- 
cratic pragmatism  of  the  redactors,  which  explains  every 
subjugation  to  the  enemy  by  an  immediately  preceding- 
idolatry,  every  deliverance  by  an  immediately  2)receding- 
repentance  on  the  part  of  the  people,  and  an  express  sending 
of  a  deliverer  by  Jahweh,  it  appears  in  a  peculiarly  primitive 
and  sometimes  grotesque  form.  The  w^orship  of  Jalnveh  under 
an  image  clearly  appears  to  give  not  the  slightest  umbrage 
as  yet.  In  the  ancient  narrative  it  is  evidently  regarded 
as  an  honour  to  Gideon  that  he  made  an  ephod,  i.e.,  an  image 


THE    "  HEKO-STORIKS  ''    OP    THE    BOOK   OF    JUDGES.  23 

of  Jaliweli,  out  of  tlie  captured  gold;  it  is  the  redactor  (viii.  27b) 
who  adds  the  condemnatory  judgment  on  this  because  it  occa- 
sioned idolatry  which  became  a  snare  to  Gideon  and  his  family. 
Moreover  in  the  ancient  narratives  Jahweh  does  not  abandon 
Israel  to  their  enemies,  but  these  to  Israel  (iii.  28,  iv.  6  ff., 
14  ff.,  &c.).  The  Spirit  of  Jahweh  not  unfrequently  appears 
as  a  magical  something  which  comes  suddenly  on  the  heroes 
and  gives  them  courage  and  strength  (vi.  34,  xi.  29,  xiii.  25, 
xiv.  6,  19,  XV.  14).  Samson's  possession  of  it  and  of  the 
gigantic  strength  which  it  imparts  depends  upon  his  unshorn 
hair  ;  when  this  goes  Jahweh  departs  with  it.  To  this 
IDeculiar  view  of  the  Nazirate  the  equally  mechanical  one 
corresponds  of  the  absolute  obligatoriness  of  a  religious  vow, 
which  compels  Jephthah  (xi.  30  f.,  and  34  if.)  to  sacrifice  his 
own  daughter  to  Jahweh.  The  religious  and  ethical  estimate 
of  events  is  practically  quite  in  the  background.  It  is  only 
at  ix.  56  f.  that  the  fate  of  Abimelech  and  the  Shechemites 
is  traced  to  divine  retribution  following  on  Jotham's  curse. 
A  glance  at  iii.  20  ff.,  iv.  18  fF.  makes  it  impossible  to  deny 
that  the  narrators  deemed  bloody  and  even  murderous 
revenge  on  the  enemies  of  the  people  or  the  tribe  justifiable 
and  even  praiseworthy.  In  accordance  with  this  SamsoTi 
expressly  implores  strength  from  Jahweh  for  his  final  deed  of 
vengeance  (xvi.  20  ff.). 

In  one  narrative  alone,  the  first  narrative  concerning  Gideon 
(vi.  2,  ff.,  to  viii.  3),  the  religious  element,  the  so-called  theo- 
cratic pragmatism,  comes  out  more  strongly  than  usual, 
But  in  this  very  instance  it  can  easily  be  shown  that  we  have  to 
do  with  a  later  revision  of  the  ancient  tradition.  The  latter  has 
been  preserved  in  the  fra^gment,  A'iii.  4  ft.  (in  the  "  Snvvey/'IP) . 
The  opening  passage  of  this  account  has  been  cut  out,  but 
can  readily  be  conjectured  from  v.  18  ff.  Midianite  chieftains 
had  undertaken  a  raid  aofainst  Northern  Palestine  and  killed 
some  of  Gideon's  brothers.  Bound  to  execute  blood-revenge, 
Gideon  summons  his  clan  Abiezer  (on  which  cf.  vi.  34,  viii.  2) 
to  follow  him,  falls  on  the  unsuspecting  Midianites  in  the 
south    of    the    East-Jordan    land,    and    with    his    own    hand 


24  §   3.    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONAECHY. 

executes  tlie  blood-revenge  on  tlieir  cliie£tains_,  after  severely 
punishing  the  inhabitants  of  Succoth  and  Penuel  for  their 
unbrotherly  conduct.  The  campaign  which  appears  in  this 
narrative  as  a  private  undertaking  of  Gideon  and  his  clan, 
necessitated  by  circumstances_,  became  in  the  later  narrative 
an  affair  of  the  whole  nation.  The  Midianites  are  an  abiding 
scourge  to  the  land ;  for  Jahweh  has  rejected  Israel  and 
abandoned  them  to  these  enemies.  But  Jahweh  now  comes 
in  the  form  of  "the  angel  of  Jahweh"  to  entrust  Gideon 
with  the  deliverance  of  Israel  (vi.  13  ff.).  But  here  too  the 
supposition  is  adhered  to  that  Gideon  undertakes  the  campaign 
with  only  three  hundred  men  of  the  clan  of  Abiezer.  A  still 
later  form  of  the  account  makes  thirty-two  thousand  men  out 
of  all  Israel  respond  to  Gideon's  summons,  but  at  vii.  2  ff". 
restores  the  agreement  with  the  older  narrative  by  dismissing, 
first  twenty-two  thousand,  then  the  rest,  with  the  exception 
of  three  hundred  who  lapped  water  with  their  tongue  instead 
of  conveying  it  to  their  mouth  by  hand. 

In  Judges  vi.-viii.  the  tw^o  narratives  follow  one  another, 
so  that  at  viii.  4  Gideon  is  suddenly  on  this  side  the  Jordan 
again,  whereas  he  had  already  returned  from  his  campaign 
at  viii.  1  ff.  But  in  the  First  Appendix  (chap.  xvii.  f.) 
the  parallel  accounts  (in  the  "  Survey  "  N  and  N'^)  are  closely 
interwoven.  The  later  revision  knows  of  the  exile  of  722 
(or  734  ?)  whilst  the  original  account  knows  only  of  the 
cessation  of  the  worship  in  the  temple  of  Shiloh. 

At  all  events  the  interest  taken  in  the  worship  of  the  image 
of  Jahweh  at  Dan  was  the  primary  cause  why  this  narrative 
was  admitted.  In  the  Second  Supplement  (chaps,  xix.-xxi.) 
the  ancient  groundwork  is  not  retained  unimpaired  excepting 
in  the  relatively  ancient  chap.  xix.  (which  itself,  however, 
is  probably  dependent  on  Gen.  xix.).  On  the  other  hand, 
chaps.  XX.  and  xxi.  belong  to  a  quite  late  revision  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Priests'  Code,  in  fact,  of  the  Chronicler,  which 
only  here  and  there  allows  a  glimpse  of  the  phraseology 
of  the  original  narrative.  Amongst  other  reasons  it  is  clear 
that  the  present  text  of  chap.  xx.  is   due  to  the    blending 


THE    JERUSALEM-SOUKCE    IN    THE    SECOND    BOOK    OF    SAMUEL.        ZO- 

of  two  parallel  accounts  from  tlio  fact  that  v.  oa  finds 
its  continuation  in  v.  11-  and,  yet  more  clearly,  v.  oGa 
in  V.  47. 

All  the  old  narratives  of  the  Book  of  Judges  hitherto 
mentioned  relate  exclusively  the  deeds  and  fortunes  of  the 
northern  tribes^  and  the  whole  must  therefore  have  sprung  from 
northern  soil.  They  pass  over  the  tribe  of  Judah  in  almost 
total  silence.  But  this  tribe  is  so  much  the  more  thoroughly 
treated  of  in  that  source  (Je)  which  we  first  meet  at  2  Sam. 
V.  3,  6,  8  fF.,  then  in  chap,  vi.,  possibly,  too,  in  the  ground- 
work of  chap,  vii.,  certainly  in  the  long  series  of  narratives, 
chaps,  ix.-xx.  22.  The  scene  is  almost  exclusively  Jerusalem  : 
David  and  his  family  stand  throughout  at  the  centre  of 
events. 

As  to  the  superior  merits  of  this  source  there  has  long  been 
but  one  opinion.  It  is  one  of  the  most  complete,  truthful  and 
finished  products  of  historical  writing  which  have  come 
to  us  from  the  Hebrews,  and  indeed  from  the  whole  ancient 
w^orld.  It  shows  no  trace  of  tendency  or  adjustment:  the 
succession  of  events  flows  from  an  inner  necessity  :  every- 
thing lies  before  our  eyes  clear  and  comprehensible ;  specially 
marvellous  is  the  characterization  of  the  king.  He  is  a  man, 
and  not  beyond  the  reach  of  human  weakness,  nay,  of  criminal 
passion.  The  narrator  is  far  from  concealing  or  even  palliating 
this.  Rather  does  he  describe,  with  searching  psychological 
truthfulness,  how  David  is  driven  on  by  the  curse  of  the 
sin  he  has  committed — first,  to  low  cunning  against  his  injured 
servant,  in  order,  if  possible,  to  bury  his  own  guilt  and  shame 
in  the  darkness,  then  to  crafty  murder  and  ill-concealed  rejoicing 
at  its  success,  till  at  last  his  conduct  is  shown  him  in  its  true 
light  by  Nathan.  Just  as  little  does  the  narrator  pass  over 
in  silence  another  dark  point  in  the  character  of  David, 
his  weakness  towards  the  sins  of  his  children.  This  is  the 
very  doom  of  his  house,  the  occasion  of  a  whole  series 
of  painful  events.  He  breaks  forth  into  hot  displeasure 
at  the  wrong  done  by  Amnon  to  Tamar,  but  he  cannot 
give  his  son  pain.     The  result  is  that  Absalom,  as  his  sister's 


26  §  3.    THE    PEKIOD    OP    THE    DIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

natural  protector,  takes  a  kind  of  blood-revenge  on  Amnon. 
Tlie  revolutionary  plans  of  Absalom  are  evidently  fostered 
by  the  tlioiiglit  that  at  the  worst  the  father  who  has  forgiven 
him  for  murdering  his  brother  Avill  not  proceed  to  the  last 
extremity.  And  David's  conduct  after  Absalom^s  death 
is  such  that  Joab  can  only  bring-  liim  to  his  senses  b}^  hard 
threats.  Yet  in  spite  of  all  this  the  narrator  not  only  knows 
how  to  win  our  complete  s^^mpathy  and  regard  for  this  same 
David,  but  how  to  augment  both  continually.  We  feel 
ourselves  involuntarily  touclied  by  the  charm  v^^hich  he^  like 
all  real  leaders,  exercises  on  those  around.  The  obvious 
contradictions  in  his  character  disappear  at  length  in  the 
harmonious  total  impression.  We  understand  how^  he  could 
be  great  and  noble,  yet  at  the  same  time  stiff-necked  and 
self-willed,  sincerely  devout  and  humble  (vi.  21  f.,  xv.  25  f., 
xvi.  10  ff.)  and  yet  full  of  shrewd  calculation  (xv.  27,  33  ff., 
xix.  12  ff.).  But  the  most  masterly  psychological  ability 
is  shown  in  the  delineation  of  his  relations  to  his  cousins, 
Joab  and  Abishai.  A  secret  dislike  of  them  both,  arising 
from  utter  dissimilarity  of  character,  is  constantly  kept  down 
by  the  politic  consideration  that  he  cannot  deny  their  merits 
or  dispense  with  their  services.  Occasionally,  however,  this 
aversion  (as  at  iii.  39  in  another  source)  finds  expression 
in  sharp  words  (xvi.  10),  and  after  Absalom^s  murder  David 
braces  himself  up  to  the  resolve  that  he  will  put  Amasa 
in  Joab's  place.  But  he  is  obliged  to  let  things  take  their 
course  when  Amasa  is  murdered  by  Joab,  and  the  latter 
is  the  only  person  who  can  quell  the  dangerous  revolt 
of  the  Benjamite  Sheba.  David  is  forced  to  endure  to  the 
end  the  man  who  is  a  rough  soldier  but  an  embodiment 
of  the  monarchical  principle.  He  displays  cold-blooded 
harshness  towards  David  the  7nan,  when  he  holds  this  essential 
to  the  welfare  of  the  king.  With  hard  words  the  son^s 
murderer  forces  the  father,  who  is  writhing  in  deepest  grief 
for  his  lost  one,  to  sit  in  the  gate  and  make  himself 
agreeable  to  the  people,  and  the  king,  in  such  an  hour, 
must  reluctantly  do  what  his  subject  bids. 


THE    "  SAUL-STOEIES  "    AKD    THE    '^  DAVID-STOKIES."  27 

There  are,  no  doubt,  many  indications  tliat  tlie  narrator  is 
separated  by  a  fairly  long*  interval  from  the  events  which  lie 
relates.  For  instance,  the  reference  to  certain  appellations 
continuing  ^'unto  this  day '^  (vi.  8,  xviii.  18;  of.  also  the 
remark,  xvi.  23).  It  must  also  be  asked  whether  such  a  straight- 
forward account  of  distressing  events  in  the  house  of  David 
could  have  been  circulated  in  Judah  at  a  time  when  those  con- 
cerned, or  at  all  events  a  considerable  number  of  their  children 
and  nearest  relatives,  were  still  alive.  This  question  would 
at  once  lose  its  point  if,  as  some  recent  critics  think,  the 
whole  source  was  originally  a  part  of  the  so-called  Jahwistic 
history.*  But  assuming  that  this  could  be  proved  of  the 
jDresent  form  of  the  accounts,  we  should  still  be  obliged  to 
judge  that  such  acquaintance  with  the  details  of  the  events — 
above  all,  such  certainty  in  giving  the  names  of  almost  all  the 
actors — could  not  have  been  gained,  fully  a  hundred  j^ears  after, 
from  popular  tradition,  but  must  have  been  derived  from 
records  written  b}^  one  who  drew  from  the  account  given  by 
eye-witnesses,  or  b}^  younger  contemporaries  of  David.  This 
may  justify  our  assigning  the  Je  source  to  the  period  im- 
mediately after  Solomon. 

The  ^'^  Hero-Stories  ^^  and  the  "Jerusalem-Source"  are 
followed,  in  order  of  time,  by  the  "Histories  of  Saul"  [S)  in 
1  Sam.  ix.-xiv.,  and  the  "Histories  of  David"  [Da)  from 
1  Sam.  xvi.  14  to  the  conclusion  of  2  Kings  ii.  Both  contain 
a  multitude  of  reliable  historical  traditions,  but  are  nosv  freely 
inlaid  with  passages  taken  from  a  quite  different  source  [SS) 
and  with  redactional  additions.  .Their  fatherland  can  onl}^  be 
determined  with  some  reserve.  It  is  intrinsicall}'-  probable 
that  the  Saul- Source  is  from  a  Benjamite,  a  member, 
therefore,  of  the  northern  kingdom,  the  David-Source  from 
a  Judahite.  But  the  partizanship  of  the  one  source  for 
Saul  and  of  the  other  for  David,  which  used  to  be  so  frequently 

*  In  opposition  to  the  attempt  repeatedly  made  since  1880,  and  most  recently 
by  Cornill  and  Budde,  to  show  that  the  patriarchal  sources  are  prolonged  into 
the  older  strata  of  the  Books  of  Judges  and  Samuel,  cf.  Kittel  in  the  Thcol. 
-Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1892,  p.  44  if. 


28  §  3.    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONAECHY. 

asserted,  cannot  really  be  proved.  The  David-Sonrce  can 
indeed  tell  o£  tlie  evil  spirit  which  fell  on  Saul,  and  drove  him 
to  fierce  jealousy  and  even  to  acts  of  revenge.  But  the 
account  noAvhere  manifests  any  hostility  to  Saul :  Jonathaur 
equally  with  David,  has  to  suffer  through  his  father's 
spiritual  gloominess  (1  Sam.  xx.  30  ff.).  And  the  account 
of  Said's  adventure  with  the  Witch  of  Endor  (1  Sam.  xxviii.) 
contents  itself  with  simply  stating  the  facts.  The  admission^ 
of  the  Elegy,  2  Sam.  i.  17fF.,  as  well  as  of  the  accounts  in 
2  Sam.  ii.  4  ff.  and  iv.  10  fF.,  proves  incontrovertibly  that 
the  account  of  SauPs  defeat  and  suicide,  1  Sam.  xxxi.,  i& 
not  at  all  meant  to  blacken  his  memory.  After  all,  it  is  by 
no  means  impossible  for  both  sources  to  have  come  from  one 
hand,  and  also  from  an  age  when  the  verdict  on  the  two  first 
kings  had  long  been  purified  from  party  feeling,  and  was  no- 
more  disturbed  by  any  tribal  jealousy.  With  this  it  agrees  that 
1  Sam.  xxvii.  6  (Va)  obviously  knows  of  several  "  kings  of 
Judah.^^  But  this  would  not  oblige  us  to  date  it  much  later- 
than  900.  The  marked  prominence  of  the  edifying  element 
in  such  passages  as  1  Sam.  xxiv.  10  fF.  might  rather  be  alleged 
in  proof  of  the  later  origin  of  the  David- Stories.  Yet  it  is 
very  debatable  how  many  of  tbese  edifying  speeches  which  we 
find  here  and  at  xxvi.  17ff.,  are  to  be  ascribed  to  a  subsequent 
editing.  It  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  original 
narrator  to  continue  as  he  does  at  1  Sam.  xxvii.  1,  if  he  had 
written  xxiv.  17ff.,  shortly  before.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
relatively  high  antiquity  of  the  Saul-Narratives  is  evinced  by 
two  tokens.  The  monarchy  is  a  blessing  from  Jahweli;  He 
Himsejf,  at  His  peopWs  cry,  appointed  Saul  to  be  king  and 
sent  him  to  Samuel,  that  the  Philistine  oppression  of  Israel 
might  be  brought  to  an  end  (1  Sam.  ix.  15  ff.).  That  is- 
quite  a  different  standpoint  from  the  one  occupied  at 
1  Sam.  viii.  10,  17ff.,  and  in  chap,  xii.,  where  the  people's- 
wish  for  a  king  is  regarded  as  treason  against  Jahweh,  and 
Samuel  consequently  accedes  to  it  with  the  utmost  reluctance. 
And  further  :  according  to  the  more  recent  view  Samuel  was- 
ruler  of  the  people  before  the  election  of  the  king,  and  after 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    LEGAL    LITERATURE.  J.\) 

this  was  the  king's  guardian,  informing  him  of  Jahweh's 
commands  (1  Sam.  xv.  1  &.),  and  rebuking  him  severely  when 
he  acted  on  his  own  account  (v.  14  ff.).  In  the  Saul-Stories, 
on  the  contrary,  he  is  a  '^  seer,'^  in  high  repute  amongst  the 
people,  and  honoured  by  Jahweh  with  the  duty  of  anointing 
the  new  king,  and  yet  it  occasionally  belongs  to  his  calling  to 
tell  a  man  where  his  asses  have  wandered,  in  return  for  a 
piece  of  bread,  or  a  quarter  of  a  shekel  of  silver  (1  Sam.  ix. 
Off.). 


2.  The  Beginnings  of  the  Legal  Literature  : 
The  Book  of  the  Covenant. 

All  the  records  hitherto  mentioned  belonged  either  to  the 
domain  of  poetry  or  to  that  of  historiography,  and  showed  that 
these  departments  of  literature  had  reached  a  high  doo-ree  of 
cultivation  in  early  times.  On  the  other  hand,  we  seem  to 
have  the  oldest  record  of  legal  ordinances — probably  from  the 
beginning  of  the  ninth  century — in  the  so-called  '^Book  of 
the  Covenant,'^  of  which  we  had  to  speak  previously  (p.  7f.) 
in  another  connection.  We  here  leave  quite  untouched  the 
dispute  as  to  which  of  the  great  Pentateuch-Sources,  /or  £/, 
incorporated  this  code  of  law,  and  as  to  whether  a  Decaloo-ue 
was  issued  earlier  than  it,  occup^ang  ourselves  solely  with 
the  contents  of  Exod.  xx.  24 — xxiii.  19.  It  was  remarked 
above  that  the  present  text  is  traversed  by  many  glosses* 
■and  redactional  additions.  None  the  less  evident  is  it  on 
inspection  that  the  original  order  of  the  statutes  has  been 
confused  in  various  ways  (especially  at  xxi.  37  ff.).  So  far, 
however,  as  the  original  text  can  still  be  determined 
it  presents,  as  might  be  expected,  not  a  legislation  embracing 
the  entire  life  of  the  people,  founded  on  theoretical  principles, 
but  a  codification  of  usage  and  wont,  of  customary  rights, 
as  these  must  develop  in  daily  intercourse,  especially 
among  neighbours.     Hence  the  greatest  amount  of  space  is 

♦  The  following  passages  betray  themselves  by  the  use  of  the  plural ;  xxii. 
20b,  21 ,  23,  24b,  30,  xxiii.  9b,  13. 


30  §  3.    THE    PEEIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

taken  up  by  tlie  so-called  '^  Claims  for  Damages ''  for 
manslaughter,  kidnapping,  murder,  corporal  injury,  tlieft, 
negligence  with  fire,  injury  to  fields  or  cattle.  But  alongside 
this  the  religious  and  ethical  point  of  view  asserts  itself,  and 
not  merely  in  the  statutes  which  especially  relate  to  worship 
(xx.  24,  xxii.  19,  27,  29),  or  to  the  rights  of  male  and  female 
Hebrew  slaves  (xxi.  1-11),  but  especially  in  care  for  slaves  in 
general  (xxi.  20  f.,  2G  f.),  strangers  (xxii.  20),  poor  and  needy 
(xxii.  24  if.,  xxiii.,  10  f.)  as  well  as  in  the  prohibition  of  witch- 
craft and  incest  (xxii.  17f.).  The  Sabbath  Law  is  based 
solely  on  the  duty  of  humanity  (xxiii.  12).  But  chiefly  do 
we  meet  with  a  lofty  ethical  standpoint  in  the  directions 
given  (xxiii.  4  f.)  that  if  occasion  offer  a  personal  enemy  must 
be  protected  from  harm. 

We  are  wholly  in  the  dark  as  to  the  circle  from  which 
all  these  statutes  proceeded  and,  above  all,  as  to  the  public 
authority  by  which  scrupulous  obedience  was  ensured.  Yet 
such  an  authority  must  be  assumed,  otherwise  there  would  be 
no  meaning  in  the  precise  fixing  of  punishments  and  amends, 
from  the  punishment  of  death,  seven  times  prescribed,  and  of 
the  avenging  on  the  body  of  the  guilt}^  person  the  wrong  he 
had  done  (xxi.  23  ff.),  down  to  the  money-fine.  But,  empha- 
tically as  justice  and  impartiality  in  legal  cases  is  insisted  on 
(xxiii.  1  11'.),  there  is  not  a  single  indication  as  to  who  is 
authorized  to  pronounce  sentence  or  to  supervise  the  execu- 
tion of  the  verdict.  It  is  indeed  twice  ordered  that,  in 
case  of  a  law-suit,  the  man  is  to  be  brought  "before  God,^^ 
i.e. J  to  a  sanctuary,  once  (xxi.  G),  to  perform  a  symbolic  act 
which  will  have  legal  effect,  the  other  time  (xxii.  8),  to  obtain 
an  oracle;  but  even  in  these  cases  nothing  is  said  about  the 
agents,  priests  for  example.*     With  regard  to  the  courts  of 

*  It  is  a  quite  untenable  opinion,  still  shared  by  some  moderns,  that  in  these 
passages  the  translation  should  not  be  "  before  God  "  but  "  before  the  gods  " 
(grammatically  possible,  and  given  by  Luther),  and  that  the  expression  should 
be  understood  of  the  rulers  or  priests.  It  should  rather  be  asked  whether  the 
expression  does  not  come  from  a  time  when  God  was  represented  at  every 
sanctuary  by  an  image  which  was  connected  with  the  oracle.  In  fact,  it  cannot 
be  pronounced  impossible  that  at  xxi.  G  an  hnage  is  meant,  placed  in  the  house 
itself  (at  the  door  ?). 


THE    JAHWISTIC    HISTOKICAL    ^VORK.  31 

justice,  the  drawing  np  of  tlie  indictment,  the  procedure, 
such  as  the  examination  of  witnesses,  and  the  execution 
of  the  sentence,  it  is  evident  that  long-established  customs 
are  taken  for  granted,  so  that  the  codification  was  simply 
intended  to  promote  greater  uniformity  in  the  decision 
of  cases  and  in  the  penalties  that  were  to  be  imposed.  If 
the  statement,  2  Chron.  xvii.  9,  has  been  derived  from, 
a  genuine  tradition,  the  establishment  and  promulgation  of 
these  rules  of  justice  may  have  been  due  to  Jehoshaphat  of 
Judah.  But  it  is  also  possible  that  they  sprang  from  the  soil 
of  the  northern  kino-dom. 


8.  The  Jahwistic  Histouical  Work. 

Historical  composition,  as  we  have  seen,  had  devoted  itself 
in  the  first  place  to  the  events  of  the  earliest  period  of  the 
Kings,  and  also,  in  the  northern  kingdom,  to  the  heroes  of 
the  time  of  the  Judges.  The  primaeval  history  of  the  people, 
as  well  as  the  patriarchal  age,  the  Deliverance  from  Egypt  by 
Moses  and  the  Conquest  of  the  Promised  Land,  seem  to  have 
been  left  to  oral  tradition  and  adaptation  until  at  least  the 
Solomonic  period.  The  oldest  written  presentation  of  these 
events  accessible  to  us  is  found  in  that"  splendid  historical 
work  which  is  usually  called  the  Jahwistic  (J)  because  of  its 
preponderating  use  of  the  divine  name  Jahweh,  which  begins 
even  in  the  history  of  the  Creation. 

0)1  the  History  of  Pentateuch  Criticism.  In  this  place  we  must 
limit  ourselves  to  the  following  summary  of  the  History  of 
Pentateuch  Criticism,  or,  in  so  far  as  the  Book  of  Joshua  comes 
j^rominently  into  consideration,  Hexateuch  Criticism,*  a  criticism 
which,  after  manifold  aberrations  darinf^  a  space  of  140  j^ears,  has 
at  last  gained  a  fair  number  of  absoluteh'  fixed  results.  Isolated 
doubts  concerning  the  authenticity  of  the  whole  Pentateucli  had 
already  been  expressed  in  past  centuries,  when  Jean  Astruc,  of 
Montpellier,  a  devout  Catholic,  made  the  fundamental  discovery 
that  in  Genesis  the  divine  names  Elohim  (i.e.,  God)  and  Jahweh 

*  But  cf.  below  ^  C),  2,  last  note. 


32  §  3.    THE    PERIOD    OP    THE    DIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

alternate  in  a  striking  manner,  and  founded  on  this  the  hypothesis 
that  Moses  himself  (Pentateuch  criticism  therefore  by  no  means 
originated  in  rejection  of  the  authenticity  !)  placed  side  by  side 
two  principal  documents  (^memolres),  an  Elohistlc  and  a  Jehovistic, 
and  appended  to  them,  in  a  third  and  fourth  column,  fragments 
from  ten  other  documents.  Oar  Genesis  arose  from  tlie  blending 
of  these  four  columns.  Astruc  published  this  hypothesis  at  Brussels 
in  1753  in  an  anonymous  work  (Conjectures  sur  les  memoires, 
dont  il  parait  que  Moyse  s'est  servi  pour  composer  le  livre  de  la 
Genese ;  German  translation,  Frankfort,  1789),  but  no  attention 
was  paid  to  him  in  France. 

In  Germany  the  hypothesis  was  first  published  by  the  Gott. 
gel.  Anzeigen  of  September  19th,  1754:  at  the  end  of  the  year  it 
was  warmly  opposed  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  {Relatlo  de  lihris  novis,  XI. 
1G2  ft.)  ;  but  at  last  it  was  brought  into  repute,  chiefly  through 
Eichhorn  (Einleitung  ins  Alte  Testament,  first  at  Leipzig,  1780  ff'.). 
At  all  events  it  w^as  in  Germany  that  it  first  found  a  deeper 
scientific  foundation  and  also,  before  long,  a  further  expansion. 
Ilgen  ("Die  TJrkunden  des  Jerusalemischeii  TempelarcTuvs  in  Hirer 
Urgestalt,'^  first  vol.,  Halle,  1798)  discovered  that,  besides  the 
Jehovistic  document,  not  one,  but  two  independent  Elohistic  ones 
must  be  distinguished.  Unfortunately  he  prejudiced  this  perfectly 
correct  observation  by  admitting  seventeen  distinct  documents  in 
Genesis  which  he  thought  were  to  be  divided  amongst  these  three 
writers. 

All  the  divers  forms  which  Astruc's  hypothesis  passed  through 
before  Ilgen  are  usually  grouped  together  under  the  title,  "  Older 
Document  Hypothesis.''  They  all  recognize  a  quite  external  blending 
of  several  independent  sources.  A  second  stage  is  formed  by  the 
so-called  Fragments  Hypothesis,  i.e.,  the  derivation  of  the  Pentateuch 
from  a  large  number  of  separate,  unconnected  fragments  which 
were  afterwards  united  into  a  whole  by  a  compiler  (Yater's  view, 
in  his  Kommentar  ilber  den  Pentateuch,  Halle,  1802-1805,  3  vols.). 
As  the  dispute  Avent  on,  the  Older  Document  Hypothesis  under- 
went a  modification  to  the  effect  that  the  Elohistic  document  at 
the  foundation  of  the  Pentateuch  (the  so-called  "  Grundschrift ") 
was  supplemented  by  the  redactor  with  material  from  another 
source,  the  Jehovistic.  But  as  the  supplementer  was  eventually 
identified  with  the  Jehovist  this  brings  us  to  the  Supplement 
Hypothesis.     Prepared  for  by  De  Wette,  thrown  out  in  1831  by 


THE    JAIIWISTIC    HISTOKICAL    WORK:.  33 

Ewald  as  a  conjecture,  expressly  maintained  bj  Bleek  and  Peter  v. 
Bohlen,  this  hypothesis  received  from  F.  Tucli,  in  his  ^^  Knmmcntar 
ilher  die  Genesis''  (Halle,  I808),  a  thorouq-h  scientific  foundation, 
and,  because  of  its  orgeat  simplicity,  soon  obtained  almost  universal 
recognition.  But  after  Hupfeld  ("  Die  Quellen  der  Genesis  und  die 
Art  ihi>r  Zasammensetzmig,''''  Berlin,  1853)  had,  in  the  first  place, 
shown  the  correctness  of  Ilgen's  distinction  between  two  Eloliistic 
documents,  and,  in  the  second  place,  had  put  the  significance  of 
the  Jehovistic  document  as  an  independent  historical  work  beyond 
all  doubt,  there  gradually  arose,  on  the  ground  of  these  two 
convictions,  all  the  various  forms  of  the  "  Later  Document  Hypo- 
thesis.''  The  peculiarity  of  them  all  is  the  acceptance  of  four 
originally  independent  main  sources  (namely,  besides  the  Jehovist 
[better,  Jahwist]  and  the  two  Elohists,  the  Deuteronomic  writer 
[D],  in  the  greater  part  of  Deuteronomy).  In  fact  the  number 
four,  as  well  as  the  special  characters  of  these  main  sources,  has 
been  demonstrated  by  such  incontrovertible  reasons,  and  such  a 
degree  of  unanimity  respecting  the  detailed  analysis  of  the  sources 
has  been  reached  amongst  all  competent  inquirers,  that  the  rejection 
of  these  results  now  can  only  be  explained  by  two  reasons ;  either 
from  lack  of  acquaintance  Avith  the  facts,  or  from  a  resolution, 
embraced  once  for  all,  not  to  allow  any  force  of  facts  to  bring 
about  the  abandonment  of  prejudices  refuted  long  ago. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  adherents  of  the  Later  Document  Hypo- 
thesis are  still  at  variance  on  two  points.  First,  as  to  whether  the 
four  main  sources  existed  independently,  side  by  side,  till  they 
■were  united  by  the  redactor  (whom  all  hold  to  be  post-exilic),  or 
whether  the  Jahwist  (/)  and  the  Elohist  related  to  him  {E)  had 
already  been  blended  into  a  whole  when  Deuteronomy  (D)  was 
united  with  them  :  in  the  latter  case  the  final  stage  of  redaction 
would  be  the  union  of  JED  with  the  other  Elohist  (P,  or  the 
Priests'  Code).  In  our  Outline,  as  in  the  Historical  Tables,  the 
second  view  is  accepted  as  correct. 

But,  secondly — and  this  is  far  more  important — the  sequence  of 
the  four  sources  is  disputed.  The  older  critics  were  bound  hand 
and  foot  by  the  prejudice  that  the  source  which  stands  first 
(Gen.  i.),  the  Priestly  Elohist,  must  also  be  the  oldest.  This 
seemed  to  be  especially  supported  by  the  fact  that  (at  least  in 
(xenosis)  it  actually  forms  the  framework  in  which  the  united 
whole  is  fitted.     Hence  there  are  still  distinguished  scholars  who 

3 


54  §    3.    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    DIYIDED    MONARCHY. 

place  this  document  (P),  if  not  at  tlie  head,  j-et  (with  Dillmann) 
after  E  and  before  /  and  D.  Others  put  E  and  /  (or  /  and  E)  at 
the  head,  but  claim  for  P,  or  a  part  of  it,  priorit}-  to  D.  (The 
belief  that  the  latter  originated  in  the  seventh  century  is  practically 
unanimous.) 

In  opposition  to  all  these  opinions,  the  view  was  next  maintained, 
with  ever-growing  emphasis,  that  the  Priestly  Elohist  (P)  came 
last  (in  and  after  the  Exile),  and  thus  represents  the  final  stage  of 
development  within  the  Hexateuch.  Stated  first  in  1833  by  E.  Reuss 
(in  theses  for  his  pupils),  then  propounded  in  1835  simultaneously 
by  Vatke  {Die  lieligion  des  Alt  en  Testaments,  T.,  Berlin)  and 
George  (Bis  illteren  judisclien  Feste,  ^c,  Berlin),  this  hypothesis 
had  practically  passed  into  oblivion  when  Graf,  a  pupil  of  Reuss, 
revived  it  in  1806,  first  with  reference  to  the  legal  portions  of  the 
Priests'  Writing,  and  afterwards  including  the  historical.  Hence 
it  has  been  called  the  Grafian  Hypothesis.  At  first  it  W'as  only 
accepted  by  individual  scholars,  and  that,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
great  Dutch  critic  Kuenen,  after  the  most  exhaustive  independent 
investigation.  At  last  it  has  won  recognition  in  ever-widening 
circles,  and  reached  an  almost  undisputed  sway.  This  is  principally 
due  to  Wellhausen's  brilliant  demonstration  (in  the  first  vol.  of 
his  Geschichte  Israels,  Berlin,  1878  [Eng.  Trans.,  1885]  ;  the  later 
editions  bear  the  title  Prolegomeiia  zur  Geschichte  Israels).  The 
reasons  why  we  concur  in  thinking  it  absolutely  incontrovertible 
will  be  adduced  in  the  further  course  of  our  Outline.  For  all  the 
details  on  which  the  analysis  dejoends,  we  refer  to  Dillmann's 
Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch,  which  is  as  copious  as  it  is 
reliable  (Genesis,^'  1892  [Eng.  Trans.,  1898]  ;  Exodus  u.  Leviticus, 
1880 ;  Numeri,  Deuter.,  Josua,  1886),  as  well  as  to  Holzinger's  Eln- 
leitung  in  den  Hexateuch  (Freiburg  und  Leipzig,  1893),  at  the  end 
of  which  there  is  an  outline  in  fourteen  tables  of  the  results  reached 
by  the  most  distinguished  investigators.  The  history  of  Pentateuch 
criticism  is  given  most  completely  in  Westphal's  Les  Sources  du 
Fentateuque,  1888,  1892,  Paris  [See  also  Chej^ne's  Founders  of  Old 
Testament  Criticism,  Lond.,  1893,  Tr.'].  The  reasons  on  which  the 
analysis  rests  are  more  or  less  thoroughly  discussed  in  all  the 
recent  works  on  the  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament.  Special 
mention  must  be  made  of  Corxill  (Freib.  u.  Leipz.,  1891  ;  3rd 
and  4th  Editions,  1896);  Ed.  Konig  (Bonn,  1893),  p.  134  ff. ; 
Driver   (1st   Edition,   Edinb.,   1891;    6th   Edition,   1897;    Germ. 


THE    JAHWISTIC    HISTORICAL    WORK.  35 

Trans,  from  tlie  ofch  Edition  by  Rothstein,  Berlin,  1896).  Cf.  also 
the  excellent  popularly-scientific  treatment  of  the  whole  problem  in 
W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jeivish  Church 
<2ncl  Edition.  Lond,,  1892),  Germ.  Trans,  by  Rothstein  {Das  A, 
Test.  Seine  Etitstehung  und  Ueherliefcru'tu/,  Freib.  u.  Loipz.,  1894). 
The  composite  character  of  Genesis  is  shown  very  clearly  by  differ- 
ences of  type  in  Die  Genesis  mit  dusserer  TJnterscheiditng  der  Quel- 
lenschrifleti  uhersetzt  von  Kautzsch  und  Socin  (2nd  Edition,  Freiburg, 
1891),  by  differences  of  colour  in  Paul  Haupt's  Sacred  Boohs  of  the 
Old  Testament  (Leipzig,  beginning  in  1893)  :  up  to  the  present  the 
Hebrew  text  of  Genesis  in  Eight  Colours,  by  Ball  (1896),  Leviticus 
in  Two  Colours,  by  Driv^er  and  White  (1894),  and  Joshua  in  Seven 
Colours,  by  Bennett  (1895),  have  appeared. 

The  Jaliwist  first  appears  in  the  present  text  at  Gen.  ii.  4b, 
hut  the  actual  beginning  of  his  work  seems  to  have  been 
■omitted,  possibly  owing  to  its  divergence  from  the  immedi- 
ately preceding  cosmogony  of  the  so-called  Priests'  Code. 
From  Gen.  ii.  onwards  this  source  flows  abundantly  through 
the  whole  of  Genesis  and  Exodus,  and  again  from  Nnm.  x.  29. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  it  is  represented  in  Deuteronomy 
(beginning  at  chap,  xxxi.)  :  the  latest  certain  trace  of  it  is  in 
the  two  first  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Judges.  It  aims,  there- 
fore at  supplying  a  history  of  the  Israelite  theocracy  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world  to  the  settlement  of  the  people  in  the 
land  west  of  the  Jordan.  The  only  legal  portion  which  can 
"be  certainly  ascribed  to  it  is  the  groundwork  of  Exod.  xxxiv. 
14-26. 

As  to  the  luxuriant  freshness  and  vividness,  the  charming 
flow  in  the  narratives  of  the  Jahwist,  there  has  long  been  but 
one  opinion  :  passages  like  Gen.  iii.  18  f.,  xxiv.  44,  are  true 
models  of  classical  Hebrew  prose.  And  we  cannot  value  at  a 
lower  rate  the  idea  of  God  and  the  ethical  standpoint  of  this 
source.  In  both  respects  the  powerful  influence  everywhere 
betrays  itself  of  those  prophetic  ideas  through  which  the 
Jahwistic  popular  religion  was  gradually  purged  from  grossly 
sensuous,  and,  in  part,  heathenish  ideas  and  led  on  to  its  high 
destiny  as  the  religion  of  the  world.     No  doubt  Jahweh  is  at 


3G  §    3.    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MOXARCHY. 

the  beginning  only  tlie  Grod  of  Israel,  in  the  primaeval  and 
patriarchal  periods  the  God  of  the  chosen  families  from  which 
the  people  of  Israel  is  to  proceed.  To  them  belongs  His 
special  protection  and  care.  But  Jahweh  is,  therefore,  at  the 
same  time  Lord  and  Judge  of  all  the  world.  He  destroys 
the  degenerate  human  race  of  the  first  age  with  the  Flood  ; 
He  punishes  also  with  annihilation  the  unparalleled  wicked- 
ness of  the  dwellers  in  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  He  makes 
Pharaoh  feel  His  power,  and  thus  compels  him  to  set  His 
people  free.  If  there  are  traces  of  a  much  narrower  idea  o£ 
God,  one,  in  fact,  which  can  only  be  understood  as  a  remnant 
of  antique  mythological  views  (as  Gen.  vi.  1  ff.,  xxxii.  25 ff.), 
this  only  shows,  first,  how  far  the  Jahwist  is  from  mechanical 
subjection  to  a  carefully  elaborated  theological  system. 
Further,  the  boldest  ascription  of  human  qualities  to  God^ 
as  in  Gen.  ii.  and  iii.,  and  pre-eminently,  in  chap,  xviii., 
is  always  so  made  as  to  leave  unimpaired  the  impression 
of  divine  majesty  and  dignity.  That  God  becomes  visible 
to  man,  directly  interposing  everywhere,  serves  not  merely  to- 
give  dramatic  movement  to  the  description,  but  chiefly  to 
enhance  the  impression  that  Jahweh  is  a  living  and  therefore 
a  life-giving  personality,  who  demands  joyful  faith  and  full 
surrender.  To  secure  this  end  genuine  religious  feeling 
cannot  dispense  with  the  so-called  anthropopathisms  and 
anthropomorphisms.  It  was  reserved  to  a  much  later  age, 
versed  in  theological  abstractions,  to  take  offence  at  this 
ascription  of  human  qualities  to  God  and  get  rid  of  it  from- 
the  old  narratives  as  best  it  could,  but  at  the  same  time  to 
destroy  the  charm  which  they  exercise  over  an  unprejudiced^ 
religious  mind. 

As  the  idea  of  God,  so  also  the  ethical  views  of  our  source- 
are  not  to  be  measured  by  the  strictest  standard  of  Christian 
ethics.  It  is  an  utter  mistake  to  charge  the  Jahwist  with 
taking  pleasure  in  Jacob's  deceiving  Esau  (the  Israelite 
against  the  hated  Aramaean!).  On  the  contrary,  he  designates 
Jacob's  conduct  as  guile  (Gen.  xxvii.  35),  and  the  part  which 
Esau  plays  in  chap,  xxxiii.  is  far  more  honourable  than  Jacob's, 


THE    JAHWISTIC    HISTORICAL    WORK.  37 

The  power  of  the  popular  customs  which  still  prevailed  in  the 
Jahwist's  day  explains  some  other  points  which  may  seem 
offensive  to  us.  This  especially  applies  to  concubinage  and 
all  its  consequences.  But  scandals  still  remain  which  cannot 
be  got  rid  of  by  the  argument  that  the  Jahwist  contented 
himself  with  an  objective  narrative  and  deemed  it  unnecessary 
to  pronounce  an  express  condemnation.  Amongst  these  we 
reckon  the  risk  to  which  Sarah  (Gen.  xii.)  and  Rebekah 
(chap,  xxvi.)  were  exposed  by  the  false  statements  of  their 
husbands,  the  out-mancx3Uvring  of  Laban  (type  of  the  hated 
Aramaean) "^ by  the  crafty  devices  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxx.  37  ff.), 
and,  not  less,  the  robbing  of  the  Egyptians  (Exod.  xii.  36). 
The  outwitting  of  foreigners,  under  certain  circumstances, 
is  even  counted  a  clear  right.  But  after  all,  what  are  all 
these  details  compared  with  the  general  impression  made 
on  us  by  the  unpretentious  piety  and  the  moral  earnestness 
of  the  actors,  and  therefore  of  the  narrator  himself ! 
"  I  am  not  worthy  of  all  the  benefits  and  of  all  the  truth 
which  Thou  hast  shown  unto  Thy  servant.'^  This  confes- 
sion of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxii.  11)  is  obviously  looked  upon  as 
a  confession  of  the  people  which  bears  his  name.  And  if 
the  Jahwist  thinks  of  sacrifices  and  offerings  as  having  been 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world  the  natural  expression  of 
a  devout  disposition,  and  elsewhere  treats  the  consulting  of 
the  divine  oracle  as  a  primitive  custom  (xxv.  22),  yet  the 
earhest  sacrifice  of  all  teaches  that  it  is  the  disposition  and 
not  the  offering  which  counts,  and  it  is  not  offerings  or  other 
works,  but  believing  reliance  on  the  word  of  Jahweh  which  is 
counted  to  Abraham  for  righteousness. 

Up  to  this  point  we  have  spoken  of  the  Jahwistic  source 
as  a  homogeneous  work.  But  a  closer  examination  of  its 
contents  show^ed  long  ago  that  here  also  we  have  to  do  with 
various  strata,  and  therefore  with  the  work  of  a  Jahwistic 
school.  The  narrator  of  Genesis  iv.  10-24  knows  of  no 
Deluge  ;  for  he  presupposes  that  all  shepherds,  musicians, 
and  smiths  are  descended  in  an  uninterrupted  series  from  the 
sons  of  Lamech.  At  Gen.  ix.  20  ff.  the  sons  of  Noah,  who 
still  dwell  with  him  in  one  tent,  are  called  in  the  original  text 


38  §    3.    THE    PEEIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

Shem,  Japliet,  and  Canaan;  and  these  names  here  stand  in 
a  different,  far  stricter  sense,  than  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japhet 
elsewhere.  At  tren.  xi.  1-9  the  dispersion  of  mankind  over 
the  earth  is  not  connected,  as  in  chap,  x.,  with  their  deriva- 
tion from  the  different  sons  of  Noah,  bnt  with  the  confusion 
of  tongues  which  God  decreed.  All  this  warrants  our  dis- 
criminating between  an  older  and  a  later  form  of  J"  (J^  and  J"-).* 
Both  relate  the  primasval  history  from  the  standpoint  of  a 
history  of  redemption,  but  J^  as  the  histor}^  of  Israel  and 
without  presupposing  the  Flood,  J^  as  the  primaeval  history  of 
mankind  and  interweaving  the  account  of  the  Flood.  The 
latter,  although  carefully  purged  from  all  mythological 
additions,  evinces  a  closer  acquaintance  with  the  Babylonian 
primaeval  history  and  thus  shows  that  J^  is  of  later  origin  than 
the  specifically  Hebrew  tradition  of  J^  (which  has  a  strong 
mythological  colouring  at  Gen.  vi.  Iff.).  By  far  the  greater 
portion  of  the  remaining  matter  (from  Gen.  xii.  onwards)  must 
have  belonged  to  /'.  Subsequently,  probably  in  the  eighth 
century,  a  Judahite  hand  (J"'^)  blended  the  two  recensions,  so 
as  to  form  the  Jahwist  as  we  now  have  him  in  the  Pentateuch. 
The  adoption  of  this  view  solves  also  in  the  simplest 
manner  the  problem  as  to  the  Jahwist's  native  land.  In  all 
the  patriarchal  narratives  the  utmost  care  is  taken  to  account 
for  the  consecration  of  the  ancient  holy  places  by  appearances 
of  Jahweh  and  special  experiences  of  the  patriarchs.  But  the 
specifically  Israelite  sanctuaries  also  belong  to  these  holy 
places.  How,  then,  could  it  be  understood  that  a  Judahite,  at 
a  time  when  the  temple  of  Solomon  was  already  in  existence, 
brought  the  sanctity  of  Shechem,  Bethel,  and  Peniel  into  the' 
prominence  they  have  at  Gen.  xii.  6,  xxviii.  loff.,  and  xxxii. 
31  ff.  ?  But,  on  the  other  side,  the  memory  of  Abraham  and 
perhaps  of  Jacob  also  is  almost  exclusively  associated  with 
Hebron;  in  the  Joseph-Histories  it  is  Judah  (not  Reuben,  as 
in  E)  who  is  spokesman  for  the  brethren;  at  Exod.  xxxii.  1  ff. 
there  is  in  all  probability  a  Judahite  condemnation  of  the 
Ephraimite  bull-worship.     All  these  apparent  contradictions 

*  On    this    compare    the    pioneer   investigations    of    Budde,   Die  Biblische 
Urgeschichte  (Gen.  i.-xii.  5).     Giessen,  1883. 


THE    JAHWISTIC    HISTORICAL    WOKK.  39 

disappear  of  themselves  if  we  sec  in  J^  (to  say  nothing  of  J-^) 
a  Jadahite  recension  of  the  Epliraimite  original  which  J^ 
supplied. 

To  determine  more  precisely  the  time  when  the  Jahwistic 
source  arose  we  must  naturally  begin  with  J^.  The  age  of 
Solomon  suggests  itself  as  the  earlier  limit,  for  the  bond- 
service of  the  Canaauites,  presupposed  at  Gen.  ix.  25  f.  (cf. 
also  xii.  6  and  xiii.  7),  is  traced  back  to  that  age  at  1  Kings  ix.  21. 
Gen.  X.  11  ff.  has  also  been  adduced  as  indicating  the  earlier 
limit,  where  the  narrator  knows  Kalchu  (Kelach)  which  Assur- 
nasirhabal  has  already  rebuilt  (883  fF.)  and  made  into  a  royal 
city,  but  does  not  know  Sargon's  buildings  in  North  Nineveh 
(722  ff.).  But  it  is  questionable  whether  Gen.  x.  8  if .  belongs 
to  /^  Just  as  little  certainty  can  be  obtained  from  xxvii.  40. 
If  the  whole  verse  belonged  to  J^  it  would  no  doubt  testify  to  his 
acquaintance  with  the  revolt  of  the  Edomites  under  Joram 
(about  845).  But  the  second  (prosaic!)  half  of  the  verse  quite 
gives  the  impression  of  an  addition  to  the  poetic  utterance 
which  (Hke  xxv.  23)  knows  only  of  Edom's  servitude. 

If  all  this  indicates  that  J^  belongs  to  the  interval  between 
950  and  850,  certain  traces  are  not  lacking  of  a  more  recent 
age  than  that  of  Solomon.  The  existence  of  the  northern 
kingdom  under  kings  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  is  undoubtedly 
presupposed  by  the  glorification  of  Joseph  in  the  whole  of  the 
Joseph-Stories,  and  yet  more  clearly  by  the  preference  of  the 
younger  Ephraim  to  Manasseh  (Gen.  xlviii.  17  ff.).  But  the 
influence  of  prophetic  ideas,  everywhere  traceable  and  already 
brought  out  by  us,  is  the  strongest  evidence  for  the  ninth 
century.  The  time  of  the  religious  war  which  Elijah  waged 
against  Baal  seems  to  be  left  behind,  the  worship  of  Jahweh 
to  be  unopposed,  indeed  to  be  in  its  prime.  Joy  in  Him  resounds 
everywhere,  but  not  less  joy  in  the  blessings  which  Jahweh 
has  poured  on  His  people,  and  in  the  beautiful  land  which  He 
has  given  them.  The  struggles  which  had  to  be  gone  through 
to  win  these  lie  in  the  far  background.  Settled  conditions, 
milder  manners,  have  gained  the  upper  hand.  Intercourse 
with  neighbouring  tribes  is    almost   without   exception  of   a 


40  §    3.    THE    PEEIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

peaceful  kind  ;  joyous  consciousness  of  tlie  great  position  tliey 
have  won  is  not  spoiled  by  any  misleading  national  conceit,  but 
is  associated  Avitli  an  elevating  anticipation  that  Israel  is 
intended  by  its  God  for  something  greater  than  an  honourable 
political  position  in  the  world  of  nations.  A  precise  deter- 
mination of  place,  time  and  author  is  naturally  impossible. 
But  if  we  are  to  venture  on  a  conjecture  there  is  most  to  be 
said  for  about  855.  The  commanding  position  which  Omri 
had  won  for  Israel  was  then  unimpaired.  The  attack  of  the 
Aramaeans  was  victoriously  repelled  at  Samaria  and  then  at 
Aphek,  and  the  extremely  friendly  relations  Avith  Jehoshaphat 
of  Judali  might  seem  to  guarantee  a  long  continuance  of  these 
favourable  conditions. 


4.  Other  Relics  of  the  Literature  of  the  9th  and  8th 
Centuries  (1  Sam.  iv.  Iff.). — '*^  The  Blessing  op 
Moses. ^' — The  Mirror  of  the  Prophets. — 1  Kings  xx. 
22,  &c. 

The  other,  fairly  extensive  remains  of  the  historiography 
and  poetry  of  the  ninth  and  eighth  centuries,  preserved  to  us 
in  the  Pentateuch,  and  especially  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  and 
Kings,  all  seem,  like  the  groundwork  of  the  Jahwistic  source, 
to  have  sprung  from  the  soil  of  the  northern  kingdom.  Thus 
the  narrative  of  the  loss  and  recovery  of  the  holy  ark 
(1  Sam.  iv.  Ib-vii.  1,  designated  E  in  the  ^' Survey  ^^), 
perhaps  a  fragment  of  a  history  of  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh. 
The  age  of  the  narrative  is  specially  shown  by  the  idea 
of  the  holy  ark  and  the  magical  j^owers  hidden  in  it  which 
meets  us  at  iv.  6  ff.,  v.  3  ff.,  vi.  19ff.  The  so-called 
"Blessing  of  Moses"  (Deut.  xxxiii.)  is  also  unquestion- 
ably Ephraimite.  This  is  clear  from  the  extraordinarily 
emphatic  glorification  of  Joseph,  v.  13  ff.,  nothing  being  left 
for  Judah  but  the  wish  that  he  may  be  reunited  to  the  rest  of 
the  people  and  freed  from  his  oppressors.  The  consciousness 
of  might   and    victory   which    shines  forth   from  v.   17,   and 


EELICS  OF  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  9tH  AND  8tH  CENTURIES.      41 

especially  from  tlie  close,  v.  20  ff.,  is  perhaps  explained  by 
Joash's  victories  over  Benbadad  II.  (798  ff.)  wbicli  put  an  end 
to  the  long  oppression  of  Israel  by  the  Arania3ans  of  Damascus. 
The  sentences  devoted  to  Levi  prove  that  the  Blessing 
originated  in  priestly  circles.  In  whatever  way  we  may 
iiccount  for  the  difficult  introductory  words  a  strong  conscious- 
ness is  clearly  expressed  in  v,  10  f .  of  the  im^jortance  of  the  high 
•office  and  also  of  the  close  union  and  power  of  the  priestly 
order  in  spite  of  all  its  enemies  and  haters.  It  is  impossible 
to  determine  whether  the  '^  Blessing  of  Moses  '^  has  been  pre- 
served as  a  portion  of  a  larger  work  (the  older  Elohistic 
Pentateuch  source  ?)  or  was  first  inserted  by  one  of  the  later 
redactors. 

On  the  other  hand  the  Prophetical  Stories  concerning 
Elijah  wdiicli  we  now  read  in  1  Kings  xvii.-xix.,  xxi.  (designated 
Pr  in  the  '^  Survey  ''),  usually  grouped  with  the  somewhat  later 
Elisha-Stories  (Pr~),  in  2  Kings  ii. ;  iv.  1-6,  23  ;  viii.  1-15  ;  xiii. 
14-21,  under  the  title  ''Mirror  of  the  Prophets,''  must  have 
•sprung  from  a  special  source.  The  beginning  has  not  been 
preserved  :  Elijah  comes  on  the  scene  at  1  Kings  xvii.  without 
any  introduction.  Moreover  chap,  xviii.  shows  that  some 
account  had  been  previously  given  of  the  bloody  persecution 
of  Jahweh's  prophets  by  Ahab's  consort,  Jezebel.  But  if  we 
have  only  an  excerpt  from  the  whole,  and  that  not  free  from 
-legendary  additions,  we  have  still  a  right  to  conclude  that  our 
Elijah-Stories  are  an  important  monument  of  that  great 
religious  conflict  which  threatened  for  a  while  to  end  in  the 
victory,  or,  at  least,  the  strong  predominance  of  Baal-worship 
in  Israel.  Not  as  though  a  total  rejection  of  Jahweh  had  been 
•contemplated.  Neither  can  Ahab,  whose  three  children  bore 
names  compounded  with  Jah[weh]  (cf.  too  the  role  which  he 
plays,  1  Kings  xxii.),  have  been  a  despiser  of  Jahweh,  nor 
«can  the  people  have  broken  absolutely  with  their  whole  past. 
But  the  ''halting  on  both  sides"  (xviii.  21)  was  itself  bad 
enough.  Whilst  Jahweh  was  being  worshipped,  and  yet  they 
would  not  break  with  Baal,  whom  they  regarded  as  the 
bestower  of  all  the  gifts  of  the  fruitful  land  (cf.  Hosea  ii.  7), 


42  §    3.    THE    TEEIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONAECHY. 

tliey  were  dragging  Jahweli  down  into  Baal's  realm  and  thus- 
closing  the  way  against  the  greatest  and  weightiest  of  all 
prophetic  ideas,  the  idea  that  Jahweh  is  the  sole  God,  or  at 
all  events  that  His  might  and  glory  far  surpass  all  the  heathen 
gods.  And  the  great  zealot  for  this  truth,  who,  amongst  all 
the  figures  of  the  Old  Covenant,  has  found  his  equal  only  in 
Moses,  hardly  in  Samuel,  who,  therefore,  according  to 
Mai.  iii.  23,  was  expected  b}^  a  later  age  as  the  forerunner  of 
the  Day  of  Jahweh,  has  found  in  the  narrator  of  1  Kings  xvii.  ff. 
an  exponent  worthy  of  himself.  The  mystery  of  Elijah^s 
person,  his  lightning-like  appearance  and  disappearance,  the 
magnificent  severity  of  iiis  speeches,  and  the  energy  of  his 
action — all  this  is  brought  before  ns  with  such  marvellous 
plastic  force  and  dramatic  vividness  as  to  create  at  every  step 
the  impression  of  an  extraordinary  personalty. 

Compared  with  the  Elijah-Stories  the  Elisha  ones,  which 
begin  at  2  Kings  ii.,  show  less  descriptive  power.  The  legendary 
element  takes  up  an  almost  larger  space  (cf.  especially  ii.  8,  24  ;. 
vi.  8if.  ;  xiii.  20  f.),  and  some  sections  appear  to  be  due  to 
imitation  of  the  corresponding  Elijah-narratives.  Yet  these 
portions  also  give  us  many  a  valuable  glimpse  of  the  religious 
and  political  circumstances  of  that  age,  and  are  therefore  a 
historical  source  of  exceeding  value. 

This  is  even  truer  of  the  approximately  contemporaneous 
narratives  of  the  time  of  Ahab,  Joram,  and  Jehu,  in  1  Kings 
XX.,  xxii.,  2  Kings  iii.  (?),  vi.  24-vii.  17,  and  (with  all  sorts 
of  additions)  chapters  ix.  and  x.  All  these  pieces  show  a  good 
acquaintance  with  details  of  the  events  which  happened  about 
two  generations  before,  and  are  able  to  narrate  them  with 
great  clearness  and  vividness.  In  all  probability  they  are 
portions  of  a  larger  historical  work  :  doubtless  we  owe  their 
admission  into  the  Book  of  Kings  to  the  fact  that  some  kind 
of  religious  interest  attaches  to  them  all.  Thus  1  Kings  xx. 
(apart  from  the  prophetical  sayings  subsequently  interwoven) 
is  a  memorial  of  the  fact  that  Jahweh,  the  god  of  the  hills 
(v.  23),  can  also  conquer  with  His  people  in  the  plains.  In 
chap,  xxii.,  2  Kings  iii.  and  vi.,  24  ff.,  prophets  play  a  leading 


THE    HISTOKICAL    ^VORK    OF    THE    OLDER    ELOHIST.  4o 

part:  in  cliaps.  ix.  and  x.  it  is  told  liow  Jehu,  anointed  at 
Elisha's  bidding,  fulfilled  Elijah's  threat  against  the  house  of 
Ahab,  and  at  the  same  time  made  a  complete  end  of  the 
Baal-Avorship  in  Israel. 


5.  The  Historical  Work  of  the  Older  Elohist. — The  mork 
RECENT  Biographies  op  Samuel  and  Saul. 

Ephraimite  historiography  turns  once  morfe  to  the  days  of 
grey  antiquity.  Somewhere  about  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century  arose  the  second  of  the  great  Pentateuch  sources, 
which  is  usually  called  the  Elohistic  {E),  because  of  its 
habitual  use  of  the  divine  name  Elohim  {i.e.,  God).  In  the 
Survey  of  the  History  of  Pentateuch  Criticism,  we  have 
already  mentioned  (p.  33  f.)  that  tliis  source,  which  in  our 
pi*esent  Pentateuch  is  only  represented  by  extracts,  was  but 
gradually  distinguished  from  the  totally  unlike  priestly  Elohist, 
who  also,  up  to  Exod.  vi.,  avoids  the  divine  name  Jahweh.  The 
first  certain  trace  of  the  source  E  is  met  at  Gen.  xv.  5,  in  tho 
history  of  Abraham.  Hence  it  seems  not  to  have  contained 
a  history  of  prima3val  times  corresponding  to  the  Jahwistic 
pieces  in  Gen.  i.-xi.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  have  run 
in  almost  unbroken  parallelism  with  the  Jahwist  in  the 
patriarchal  histories,  the  history  of  the  Exodus  and  of  the 
Conquest  of  Canaan.  This  is  evident  from  the  review  given 
in  the  words  of  this  source  at  Joshua  xxiv.,  which  takes  in  the 
entire  period  from  the  immigration  of  Abraham  to  the  death 
of  Joshua.  This  Avork,  therefore,  also  aimed  at  giving  a  history 
of  the  preparation  for  and  founding  of  the  Israelite  theocracy. 
We  have  already  been  obliged  (p.  27)  to  state  that  it  is  at 
least  unlikely  that  its  description  extended  also  over  the  times 
of  the  Judges  and  the  earlier  Kings. 

Its  Ephraimite  origin  has  long  been  universally  admitted. 
In  fact,  every  other  view  is  excluded  by  the  striking  promi- 
nence into  which  it    brings   the   great    Israelite  sanctuaries. 


44  §  3.    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

especially  the  holy  stone  of  Bethel,  by  the  part  Keuben  plays 
as  spokesman  for  the  brothers,  and  by  much  else.     On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  disputable  whether  E  originated  after  the 
Jahwist  or  was  not  rather  before  him.     The  latter  view  has 
been  supported  by  his   greater  wealth  of  names  and  details 
which  have  vanished  elsewhere.     But  there  are  very  weighty 
arguments  in  favour  of  the  priority  of  the   Jahwist,  and  the 
dating  E  not  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century. 
Both  the  idea  of  God  and  the  ethical  standpoint  of  E  are  far 
more  due  to  reflection  than  the  Jahwist^s.     The  almost  entire 
avoidance  of  the   name  Jahweli  is   enough  to  prove  this  :  it 
forcibly  reminds  us  of  the  later  prohibition  of  the  utterance  of 
this  name.     And,  certainly,  it  is  not   by  accident  that  God 
does  not,  in  this  source,  as  in  the  Jahwist,  hold  personal  inter- 
course with  men,  but  calls  to  them  from  heaven  (Gen.  xxi.  17, 
xxii.  11 ),  or  makes  use  of  the  mediation  of  an  angel  (xxviii.  12). 
The  way  in  which  Abraham  is  cleared  from  the  reproach  of 
falsehood,  xx.  12,  and  of  harshness  towards  Hagar  and  Ishmael, 
xxi.    11  ff.,   above    all    that    in   which    at    xxxi.    6  fF.    Jacob's 
cheating  Laban  is  transformed  into  an  overreaching  of  Jacob 
by  Laban,  testifies  clearly  to  an  endeavour  to  get  rid  of  the 
ethical  offence  taken  at  the  older  form  of  the  tradition  with 
which  the  narrator  himself  was  well  acquainted.     Nor  is  it 
mere  fancy  that  misses  from  this  source  not  only  the  flowing, 
energetic  style,  but  also  the  patriotic  and  religious  enthusiasm 
of  the  JahAvist,  and  finds,  instead  of  these,  a  subdued  tone 
and  anxious  disposition.     No  doubt  this  is  a  propJietical  his- 
toriography, as  truly  as  the  Jahwist's  is.     But,  on  the  whole, 
it  no  longer  conveys  the  impression  of  a  triumphant  outlook 
on  a  glorious   future,  but  rather  that    of  a  retrospect  en  a 
bygone    history,    in   which   were    many    gloomy    experiences. 
Thus,    very  especially,  all   through    the    concluding    chapter, 
Joshua  xxiv.,  this  sentence  resounds,  "Perhaps  there  is  yet 
time  to  avert  destruction  by  sincerely  giving  up  idolatry  and 
turning   Avliolly   to  Jahweh'':    and    the    people,  at    Joshua's 
earnest  exhortation,  vows  to    do    this.     But    Joshua    himself 
cannot  quite  believe  it.     The  gulf    between  Jahweh's  unap- 


THE    MORE    RECENT    BIOGRARHIES    OF    SAMUEL    AND    SAUL.        4i> 

proachable  holiness  and  the  people's  evil  disposition  is  too 
vast  to  allow  him  to  hope  that  the  deep  wounds  will  be  healed. 
The  people's  declaration  that  they  will  serve  Jahweh  alone 
becomes  eventually  nothing  but  a  ^Svitness  against  themselves.'' 

When  we  remember  that  this  work  was  evidently  trans^ 
planted  at  an  early  date  to  Judahite  soil,  and  naturally  under- 
went revision  there,  till  at  last  it  was  blended  as  a  whole  with 
the  Jahwist,  the  fact  is  at  once  explained  that  secondary 
portions  were  in  course  of  time  attached  to  this  source,  so 
that  we  can  speak  of  an  Elohistic  as  well  as  a  Jahwistic  school. 

It  is  to  the  last  decades  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  that  the 
biography  of  Samuel  and  Saul  also  belongs,  which  is  pre- 
served in  1  Sam.  i.-iii.,  viii.,  x.  17-24,  xv.,  xvii.,  and  (in  many 
ways  inlaid  with  other  elements)  chap,  xviii.  f.,  xxi.  f.,  then 
chap.  xxvi.  last^  probably  2  Sam.  i.  G  if.  In  the  "  Survey '" 
we  call  it  SS.  We  have  indicated  above  (p.  28  f.)  how  sharply 
the  standpoint  of  this  source  is  distinguished  from  the  older 
Samuel  and  Saul-Stories.  The  kingdom  is  in  no  sense  a 
blessing,  but  a  curse  to  the  people,  for  the  longing  after  it 
amounts  to  a  rejection  of  Jahweh,  and,  notwithstanding  his 
serious  warning  (1  Sam.  viii.  10  ff.^  x.  17  ff.),  it  is  extorted 
from  the  seer  who  has  hitherto  ruled  the  people  in  God's 
stead.  The  very  first  king  fully  justified  the  evil  forebodings 
which  might  be  cherished  concerning  the  kingdom.  Alongside 
this  theological  pragmatism,  such  an  adherence  is  elsewhere 
found  to  the  genuinely  popular  elaboration  and  transformation 
of  the  older  historical  tradition  (1  Sam.  xvii.  is  a  thoroughly 
classical  example !)  as  to  justify  the  verdict  that  in  this  descrip- 
tion traditionary  elements  of  manifold  kinds  are  united  into 
a  whole,  and  partly  subjected  to  a  criticism  from  something  like 
Hosea's  standpoint.  We  can  only  venture,  with  all  possible 
reserve,  on  the  conjecture  that  the  completion  of  this  source 
was  connected  with  the  redaction  of  the  so-called  "  Pre- 
Deuteronomic  Book  of  Judges,"  which  was  produced  by  the 
blending  of  the  old  Ephraimite  Hero-Stories  (see  above, 
p.  21  f .),  and  the  indubitably  far  more  recent  enumeration  of  the 
so-called  ^^ Minor  Judges  "  (designated  ri  in  the  ^'  Survey"). 


4g  §  3.  the  peeiod  op  the  divided  monarchy. 

6.  General  Remarks  on  Prophetism. 

All  these  historical  Avorks,  though  in  divers  ways^  were 
chiefly  meant  to  promote  the  cultivation  of  the  religious  life 
in  Israel.  But,  meanwhile,  another  champion  had  come  upon 
the  scene,  who  pursued  the  same  end  by  a  direct  road  and 
with  far  more  effectual  means — literary  ^^rophecy. 

It  is  admitted  that  there  are  manifold  analogies  to  Hebrew 
prophetism  in  other  religions,  and  that  not  merely  on  Semitic 
soil.  The  Greeks  and  Romans  also  were  acquainted  with  male 
and  female  seers,  who  were  taken  possession  of  by  their  god, 
spoke  in  his  name,  and  gave  information  about  the  present  and 
the  future,  things  public  and  private.  But  the  peculiarity  of 
Israelite  prophecy  is  that  it  completely  detached  itself  from  its 
initial  amalgamation  with  soothsaying,  and  gave  itself  entirely 
to  the  service  of  religion — more  precisely,  the  true  prophets 
of  God  were  called  and  equipped  by  their  God  exclusively  for 
this  service. 

In  the  older  period  we  find  a  double  form  of  prophecy. 
The  one  is  closely  connected  with  the  priesthood.  For  it  is 
their  business  also,  in  answer  to  inquiries  on  all  possible 
occasions,  to  give  ''  direction  "  (tdrah)  :  but  the  prophet  does 
not  employ  external  means,  as  the  priests  use  the  image  of 
God  (ephod)  with  the  Urim  and  Thummim;  he  speaks  simply 
by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  who  animates  him.  But  this  does 
not  exclude  the  prophet's  spontaneously  declaring  a  word  of 
•God.  When  Samuel  is  asked  he  can  tell  that  Kish's  lost  asses 
have  returned,  but  at  the  same  time  he  has  a  word  of  God  in 
-readiness  for  the  inquirer.  The  same  Abijah  of  Shiloh  from 
whom  Jeroboam's  consort  (1  Kings  xiv.)  hopes  to  get  an 
opinion  about  her  sick  son  for  ten  loaves  and  cracknels  and  a 
cruse  of  honey  had  aforetime,  by  a  symbolical  act  and  words 
accompanying  it,  foretold  to  Jeroboam  that  he  should  be  king 
(xi.  29  ff.).  At  2  Kings  iv.  43  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  on 
Sabbaths  and  new  moons  people  were  accustomed  to  inquire 
about  private  affairs,  even  of  an  Elijah.  Hence  we  must 
believe  that  ^'  the  prophet ''  Nathan  also,  and  Gad,  David's 


GENERAL    REMARKS    ON    PKOPHETISM.  47 

■'^seer/'  from  wlioin  we  happen  only  to  have  divine  utterances, 
given  spontaneously,  practised  as  a  calling  the  giving  of 
*^  directions  "  in  answer  to  inquiries.  Down  to  Ezekicl's  time 
such  inquiries  from  the  pro])hets  are  not  lacking  :  the  only 
difference  is  that  in  these  later  times  the  questions  do  not 
relate  to  private  affairs  but  to  the  public  weal  or  religious 
interests. 

Alongside  that  form  of  prophecy  which  we  have  now  men- 
tioned, there  moves  another  which  in  all  probability  sprang 
from  Canaanite  soil  but  also  attained  importance  iu  Israel. 
It  is  that  state  of  inspiration  which  seized  with  supernatural 
force  on  single  worshippers  of  Jaliweh  or,  by  preference,  on 
•crowds  of  them  and  so  impelled  them  to  ecstatic  words  and 
deeds  as  to  drag  even  the  onlookers  through  their  example 
into  similar  conduct.  The  oldest  notice  of  this  kind  must 
be  that  at  1  Sam.  x.  5  ff .  and  10  ff.  Far  more  powerfully 
is  one  of  these  occurrences  depicted  at  xix.  18  ff.,  where 
■even  Samuel  is  drawn  in.  According  to  Num.  xi.  24  ff.  (/) 
something  similar  happened  once,  during  the  journey  through 
the  Desert.  Echoes  from  the  time  of  the  Kings  are  found  at 
2  Kings  iii.  15,  according  to  which  passage  Elisha  was 
usually  thrown  into  a  state  of  inspiration  by  the  playing  of 
ii  harp,  and  ix.  11,  where  Jehu's  officers  laconicall}^  designate 
the  disciple  of  the  prophets  whom  Elisha  had  sent  as  a  '^  mad 
fellow.^^  We  may  remark,  in  passing,  that  the  "  sons  of  the 
prophets  '^  (see  below  !)  avIio  were  gathered  round  Elijah  and 
Elisha  are,  however,  not  to  be  put  in  parallelism  with  those 
^'  Jahweh-excited  "  crowds  of  the  time  of  Samuel. 

The  designation  of  the  prophets  as  ndhl  (pi.  nehilm),  which 
afterwards  became  the  usual  one,  evidently  belonged  at  first 
to  these  enthusiasts.  The  word  strictly  signifies  a  caller, 
more  precisely  one  who  in  holy  ecstasy  utters  cries,  perhaps 
even  inarticulate  sounds.  The  verb  derived  from  the  noun 
(hithnahbtJi)  afterwards  meant  simply  ^^to  predict,^' but  at  1  Sam, 
x.  5  ff.  it  evidently  continues  to  import  "  acting  ecstatically." 
As  was  originally  the  case  with  the  Greek  word  propJictts, 
the  idea  of  foretelling  had  at  first  nothing  to  do  with  it. 


48  §    8.  THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

At  1  Sam.  ix.  9  we  are  expressly  told  that  in  earlier*  timesr 
prophets  of  the  class  we  first  mentioned  were  not  called 
nehiim  but  ^^  seers. '^  With  this  it  agrees  that  Amos  (vii.  14) 
deprecates  being  looked  on  as  a  prophet  {iidhl)  or  a  "  son  of 
the  prophets/'  i.e.,  according  to  Hebrew  usage,  a  member 
of  the  prophetic  guild.  The  word  obviously  retains  a  bad 
connotation  :  ifc  reminds  men  of  the  days  when  prophecy  was 
in  many  ways  associated  with  soothsaying,  and  prediction  with 
divination.  The  common  people  certainly  never  distinguished 
between  the  two.  It  is  thus  clear  how  nahl  at  last  could 
make  its  way  into  universal  use  as  the  name,  nay  the  name 
of  honour,  of  God's  true  prophets.  The  original  meaning 
passed  away.  The  nabi  is  "  the  speaker,^'  who  speaks  at 
God's  bidding,  but  solemnly,  not  ecstatically.  Thus  the  word 
can  finally  denote  also  the  spokesman  for  another  man  (Exod. 
vii.  1;  cf.  iv.  16,  where,  for  nahi,  is  simply  ''^ mouth"),  or, 
quite  generally,  God's  instruments  chosen  for  the  good  of  the 
theocracy  (Deut.  xxxiv.  10;  cf.  xviii.  18),  and,  still  more 
generally,  God's  confidants  and  favourites  (Gen.  xx.  7 ;  Ps. 
cv.  15). 

Where  Jahweh-prophetism  reaches  its  highest  point  it 
always  presupposes  that  the  prophet  has  been  directly  and 
expressly  called,  although  this  may  not  have  been  expressly 
stated  concerning  each  one.  This  calling  is  not  confined  to  a 
special  rank  or  a  special  culture  or  a  fixed  age  or  even  to  the 
male  sex.  Beside  the  priests  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  stands 
Amos,  the  shepherd  of  Tekoa;  beside  the  long  series  of 
prophets  the  prophetesses  Huldah  and  Noadiah.  The  Spirit 
of  God,  in  whose  might  the  prophet  speaks,  sometimes 
appears  to  be  given  for  a  special  occasion  and  end,  perhaps 
when  the  prophet  has  at  first  had  no  counsel  to  give  and  lias 
been  waiting  awhile  (cf.  the  remarkable  cases  Jer.  xxviii. 
and  xlii.  4  H'.),  sometimes  as  the  result  of  that  gift  of  the 
Spirit  which  was  bestowed  when  God  called  the  prophet, 
which  made  him  a  ''  man  of  the  Spirit  [of  God]  "  (Hosea 
ix.  5).  But  as  the  possession  of  the  Spirit  does  not  depend 
on    the    prophet's  will    so  is  His  operation   on    the   prophet 


GENERA.L    REMARKS    ON    PROPIIETISM.  49 

absolutely  irresistible.  As  the  lion's  roar  makes  tlie  bravest 
shudder  involuntarily  so  does  the  voice  of  Jahweh  compel 
him  to  prophesy  whom  He  has  called  (Amos  iii.  8).  And 
if  he  would  attempt  to  keep  to  himself  the  word  of  Jahweh 
it  would  become  "  a  burning  fire  within  him  "  which  he  could 
never  endure  (Jer.  xx.  9).  These  and  other  testimonies  of 
the  prophets  allow  of  no  twisting  and  distorting,  although  the 
(manner  in  which  the  Spirit  is  imparted,  the  process  of  the 
prophetic  '^  vision  ^'  may  even  remain  a  mystery.  The  inspira- 
tion of  the  prophets  is  the  heart  of  the  Old  Testament 
Revelation;  their  whole  appearance  is  the  strongest  guarantee 
of  the  choice  and  training  of  Israel  as  a  special  arrangement 
of  God's,  as  the  beginning  of  His  saving*  ways  towards 
mankind. 

When  we  consider  it  carefully  there  is  but  a  relative  justi- 
fication for  the  common  distinction  between  prophets  of  deed 
i(as  Elijah  and  Elisha)  and  prophets  of  word  {i.e.,  especially 
of  the  written  word).  The  manner  in  which  Isaiah  (vii.  3  fF.) 
confronts  King  Ahaz  or  even  a  Shebna  (xxii.  15  fF.)  or  that  in 
which  Jeremiah  faces  the  kings,  princes,  priests  and  the  whole 
people  of  his  day,  also  deserves  to  be  called  ^'  deed.'^  More- 
over the  literary  prophets  do  not  dispense  with  symbolical 
actions,  although  in  the  earlier  period  they  occur  but  rarely 
(in  Isaiah  only  in  chap,  xx.)  and  in  a  very  simple  and  easily 
-understood  form,  whereas  subsequently  (especially  in  Ezek. 
iv.  f.)  they  are  found,  in  part,  in  such  a  complicated  form 
that  they  can  only  be  understood  as  the  literary  expression 
of  didactic  thoughts.  Yet,  with  all  this,  the  main  form  of 
prophetic  activity,  at  least  in  the  pre-exilic  period,  is  the 
spoken  word,  whether  in  the  shape  of  direct  exhortation  and 
threatening  (as,  e.g.,  Isa.  i.)  or  of  parable  (as  Isa.  v.,  xxviii. 
_23ff.).  In  the  latter  case  a  more  or  less  complete  interpre- 
tation is  not  excluded.  But,  for  the  rest,  it  may  be  confidently 
believed  that  our  extant  oracles  of  the  pre-exilic  time  rest 
mainly  on  a  later,  though  very  free,  record  of  speeches  which 
were  actually  delivered.  As  we  learn  from  Jer.  xxxvi.  1  ff., 
Jeremiah  did  not  get  Baruch  to  write  out  all  the  words  of  God 

4 


50  §    3.    THE    PEEIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MOXAECHY. 

wticli  had  come  to  him  since  the  days]  of  Josiah  till  after 
thirty-three  years  of  activit}'.  On  the  other  hand  the  prophets 
of  the  Exile  were  naturally  led  to  do  their  work  rather  by 
writing.  It  is  characteristic  of  this  that  Vision,  the  form  of 
God^s  Eevelation  which  is  found  but  rarely  in  the  older 
prophets  (in  Isaiah,  e.g.j  only  chap,  vi.),  and  then  in  lofty  sim- 
plicity, is  now  a  matter  of  complicated  artistic  elaboration 
(especially  Ezek.  i.).  In  Zechariah's  Night  Visions  (i.  7-v.  9) 
it  appears  indeed  as  the  only  form  of  representation. 


7.  The  most  ancient  Liteeary  Peophets. — Isa.  xv.f.^  Amos,. 

HOSEA. 

Our  oldest  example  of  literary  prophecy  must  be  Isa. 
xv.-xvi.  12,  a  piece  from  an  unknown  hand  which  the  prophet 
Isaiah  designates  as  spoken  "once^^  (or  "long  ago^^  and 
now  (xvi.  14)  supplies  with  the  renewed  announcement  that  it 
shall  speedily  be  fulfilled.  The  original  situation  is  obviously 
this  :  The  Moabites,  reduced  to  severe  distress  by  the  irrup- 
tion of  an  enemy  from  the  North  (probably  Jeroboam  II.  of 
Israel),  resort  to  Judah  for  protection  in  their  extreme  need, 
but  are  repulsed  by  the  latter.  The  way  in  which  they  sue 
for  Judah^s  favour  at  xvi.  5,  as  well  as  the  answer  in  v.  6, 
betraj'S  the  authorship  of  a  Judahite  prophet,  and  with  this 
the  evident  fact  would  very  well  agree  that  Moab  is  deeply 
commiserated  on  account  of  devastation  inflicted  hy  the 
Israelites.  If  the  iprophecy  in  these  chapters  struggles  in 
a  striking  fashion  with  the  form  in  which  it  is  clad,  this 
cannot  be  explained  by  saying  that  we  have  it  here  in  the  very 
moment  of  its  endeavours  after  a  suitable  form.  Poetry  had 
long  before  reached  a  height  which  Avould  have  enabled  it  to 
provide  suitable  forms  for  such  material.  We  must  conse- 
quently ascribe  it  rather  to  a  peculiarity  of  this  individual 
prophet  (to  say  nothing  of  the  great  corruption  of  the  text). 
The  first  literary  prophet  whose  date  we  can  fix  with  some 


THE    MOST    ANCIENT    LITERARY    PROPHETS.  51 

certainty  is  Amos.  True,  we  know  nothing-  more  about  his 
person  than  what  we  are  told  in  the  title  of  his  book,  and  in 
the  historical  episode,  vii.  10  if.,  viz.,  that  he  was  a  cowherd 
and  svcomore-ligr  oTOwer  at  Tekoa,  which  doubtless  is 
identical  with  the  present  Taqlia ,  two  hours  south  of  ])eth- 
lehem;  that  Jahweh  sent  him  from  the  herd  as  a  prophet  against 
His  people  Israel,  and  that  he  accordingly  appeared  in  the 
chief  sanctuary  of  Israel  at  Bethel,  preaching  repentance, 
till  Amaziah,  the  chief  priest  of  Bethel,  accused  him  to 
Jeroboam  of  threatening  Israel  with  exile  and  Jeroboam  with 
death  by  the  sword.  The  King's  reply  is  not  reported,  but  is 
probably  contained  in  Amaziah's  words  to  the  seer,  bidding 
him  fly  at  once  to  Jadah.  Obviously  they  wanted  to  get  rid 
as  soon  as  possible  of  the  unwelcome  preacher  of  repentance, 
but  shrank  from  violence  or  bloodshed.  Amos  answers 
fearlessly  by  pointing  to  his  Divine  commission.  Yet  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  he  was  obliged  to  comply  with  Amaziah's 
strict  order,  and^  returning  to  Judah,  drew  up  there  the  book 
which  has  been  preserved  to  us.  The  date  given  in  the  title, 
*^  Two  Years  before  the  Earthquake, ^^  shows  that  several 
years  elapsed  before  he  did  this.  Zech.  xiv.  5  proves  that 
this  earthqaake  happened  in  the  time  of  Uzziah,  the  contem- 
porary of  Jeroboam  II.  From  vi.  14  it  appears  that  Israel 
was  once  more  in  possession  of  the  entire  East-Jordan  land, 
and  therefore  that  Jeroboam  II.  had  already  waged  his 
successful  wars.  According  to  all  this  we  must  place  the 
appearance  of  Amos  about  760. 

Jerome\s  description  of  the  seer  of  Tekoa  as  impei'itus 
scrmorie  (unskilful  in  speech)  is  evidently  a  hasty  conclusion 
from  his  rural  occupation,  perhaps  also  from  five  or  six 
examples  of  unusual  orthography.  Far  more  correctly  have 
the  oracles  of  Amos  been  recently  designated  as  a  model  of 
good  style  and  vivid  language,  and  admiration  been  felt  at  the 
abundant  imagery  which  he  had  at  command,  as  well  as  at 
his  breadth  of  view.  But  the  epoch-making  thoughts  which 
Amos  uttered  are  more  important  than  these  external  features. 
Not  as  though  he  had  been  the  first  to  demand  justice  and 

4  * 


52  §    3.    TUE   PEEIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONAECHY. 

rigliteousness  as  the  most  pleasing  manifestation  of  tlie 
religions  disposition  in  the  sight  of  God.  It  would  have  been 
impossible  for  him  to  put  this  with  such  earnestness  and 
emphasis  if  it  had  been  an  entirely  new  thing  for  the  people. 
But  it  was  a  new  thought  that  the  terrible  severity  of  the 
"  Day  of  Jahweh,"  which  the  people  impatiently  longed  for  as 
a  day  of  judgment  on  its  foreign  foes,  would  be  turned  mainly 
against  the  sinners  amongst  themselves.  It  was  a  new 
thought  that  the  holiness  of  God,  everywhere  and  under  all 
circumstances,  must  triumph  over  injustice  and  wickedness, 
as  amongst  foreign  nations  (i.  3  if.),  so  especially  in  Israel 
itself.  Indeed,  that  holiness  of  God  w^hich  they  had  pre- 
sumptuously provoked  does  not  shrink  from  the  extremest 
measures  conceivable.  In  opposition  to  the  popular  idea  that 
the  national  God  must  needs  interpose  at  the  decisive 
moment  for  His  people  and  land,  in  order  to  vindicate  His  own 
honour,  the  prophet  announces  that  Jahweh  will  make  use  of 
the  enemies  of  the  people  for  its  destruction.  Though  it  perish 
Jahweh  will  remain  and  His  will  be  executed.  Thus  is  the 
way  prepared  for  an  altogether  new,  infinitely  higher,  view 
of  Jahweh  and  of  His  relation  to  Israel  and  the  other  nations 
as  well. 

Both  in  time  and  in  contents  the  prophecy  of  Hosea 
attaches  itself  to  Amos.  As  to  his  person  we  know  positively 
nothing.  According  to  the  statement  at  i.  1,  which  is  due  to 
some  redactor,  he  prophesied  under  Jeroboam  II.,  and  it  is 
a  fact  that  at  i.  4  the  continued  existence  of  the  dynasty  of 
Jehu  is  assumed.  This  ended  with  Zechariah's  half-year's 
reign  about  743.  But  according  to  vii.  1,  viii.  4,  x.  3,  xiii.  10, 
Hosea  is  also  aware  of  the  swift  changes  of  kings  after 
Jeroboam's  death  and  Menahem's  introduction  of  the 
Assyrians  (v.  13,  vii.  11,  viii.  9,  xiv.  4).  There  is  no  trace  of 
anything  later  :  in  particular,  Hosea  knows  nothing  about  the 
league  of  the  Aramaeans  and  Israelites  against  Judali.  Hence 
the  other  statement  of  i.  1,  that  he  worked  under  Hezekiah, 
cannot  be  maintained.  On  the  contrary,  chaps,  i.-iii.  belong 
to  the  time  before  743^  chaps,  iv.-xiv.  to  the  time  before  736. 


ISAIAH. MICAH.  i>6 

All  tbe  contents  of  his  predictions,  to  say  notliing  of  vii.  5, 
when  he  speaks  of  the  kings  of  Israel  as  "  our  kings/^  show 
that  he  belonged  to  the  northern  kingdom.  It  is  for  his 
people  that  he  must  feel  deepest  anxiety  of  soul,  whose  sins 
stir  him  to  holy  wrath,  on  behalf  of  whom,  in  spite  of  every- 
thing, he  hopes  God^s  mercy  even  in  the  latest  hour  (xi.  8  if ., 
xiv.  2ff.).  And  thus  his  speech  continually  alternates 
between  fear  and  hope,  reproach  and  consolation,  with  no 
strict  consecution  of  thoughts,  frequently  a  sob  rather  than 
a  speech,  and  in  many  points  (partly  owing  to  textual  corrup- 
tions) hard  to  explain.  The  old  dispute  as  to  whether  we  are 
to  recognize  actual  experiences  of  the  prophet  in  the  events  of 
chaps,  i.-iii.,  or  a  mere  literary  clothing  of  prophetic  thoughts, 
must  doubtless  be  answered  in  favour  of  the  first  view.  Lio-ht 
came  afterwards  to  Hosea,  as  to  Jeremiah  (xxxii.  8),  showing 
him  that  certain  events  of  his  life  were  due  to  a  special 
appointment  of  God.  The  nnfaithfulness  of  his  wife,  and  his 
receiving  her  back  again  by  Grod's  direction,  was  to  serve  as 
a  picture  of  the  people's  great  guilt  and  of  that  pitying  love 
of  God  which  in  spite  of  all  endured  to  the  end. 


8.  Isaiah. — Micah. 

If  we  have  become  acquainted  in  the  Book  of  Amos  with 
a  monument  of  Judahite  prophetic  activity  on  foreign  soil  it 
meets  us  now  in  Isaiah  on  its  own  ground  and  in  such 
surprising  greatness,  that  neither  before  nor  after  can  we 
name  its  equal  in  the  realm  of  the  Old  Testament.  Nor  is  it 
merely  those  famous  predictions  in  chaps,  ix.  and  xi.,  those 
pillars  of  the  Messianic  hope  during  more  than  seven  centuries, 
that  justify  Isaiah^s  being  called  the  Evangelist  or  even  the  king 
of  the  Prophets.  The  time  in  which  he  was  placed  was  one 
of  endless  struggles  and  severest  dangers.  But  at  all  times 
he  knows  only  of  one  standard  by  which  to  interpret  the  signs 
of  the  times,  of  one   way  leading  to  deliverance   and  peace. 


54  §    3.    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

trust  in  his  God,  firm  as  a  rock,  and  inviolable  obedience  ta 
His  lioly  will.  He  sees  Aram  and  Israel  advance,  leagued 
againsfc  the  far  weaker  Judah  ;  this  excites  in  him  no  fear, 
Little-Faith  alone  would  despair  "because  of  these  two 
smoking  stumps  of  fire-brands/^  He  sees  them  rendered 
innocuous  by  the  Assyrians'  approach,  but  in  this  he  beholds 
no  deliverance  for  Judah.  For  the  unbelief  of  Ahaz  had 
summoned  the  Assyrians,  to  his  own  condemnation.  He  sees 
Samaria,  "  the  proud  crown  of  the  drunkards  of  Ephraim,^' 
fall,  but  her  fate  is  to  him  nothing  but  a  sign  of  the  judgment 
which  Jadah  also  will  not  be  able  to  escape.  Yet  with  all 
this  the  prophet  is  immovably  certain  that  Assyria  is  simply 
''a  rod  of  anger  and  staff  of  indignation  in  the  hand''  of 
Jahweh.  If  it  imagines  that  it  can  act  out  of  the  fullness  of 
its  own  might — can  destroy  at  its  pleasure  when  Jahweh 
meant  it  only  to  chastise — this  is  as  foolish  as  if  "  the  axe  were 
to  boast  itself  against  him  that  hewetli  therewith,  or  the  saw 
to  magnify  itself  against  him  that  worketh  it"  (x.  35).  And 
the  foolishness  of  those  who  would  thwart  God's  world-plan 
by  the  cleverest  carnal  means,  especially  by  leagues  with 
Egypt  and  other  nations,  seems  to  the  prophet  just  as  great. 
As  Jahweh  Himself  awaits  His  hour  and  lets  thing^s  T3roceed 
to  an  extreme,  till  He  "  lops  the  boughs  with  terror,  cuts 
down  the  thickest  of  the  forest  with  iron  and  brings  Lebanon 
(the  Assyrian  army)  low"  (x.  33 f.),  so  is  it  Judah's  part  to 
wait  patiently  till  the  yoke  of  its  burden  is  removed  and  the 
staff  of  the  oppressor  broken.  Even  when  the  ferment  began 
in  the  whole  of  Western  Asia,  after  the  death  of  Sargon  (705), 
and  everyone  believed  the  hour  of  freedom  had  come,  and 
even  a  Hezekiab  allowed  himself  to  be  hurried  into  premature 
action,  Isaiah  adhered  immovably  to  his  word :  not  from 
Pharaoh,  not  from  Egypt,  can  help  come,  but  "  in  returning 
and  rest  shall  ye  be  saved,  in  quietness  and  confidence  shall 
be  your  strength "  (xxx.  16).  And  he  held  fast  to  this  con- 
fidence even  when  Sennacherib  was  close  to  Jerusalem  and 
the  surrounding  country  was  terribly  laid  waste,  and  Hezekiali 
had  vainly  hoped  at  least  to  avert  the  surrender  of  the  capital 


ISAIAH. MI  CAT! .  DO 

by  paying  an  immense  tribute.  Whilst  the  king  rends  his 
■clothes  and  deems  everything  lost,  Isaiah  has  naught  but 
contempt  and  scorn  for  the  Assyrians'  onset.  And  his  faith 
wins  the  day.  The  Assyrian  host  is  wasted  by  the  pestilence  ; 
prophecy  celebrates  its  greatest  triumph. 

But  the  relation  of  Judah  to  Assyria  is  only  a  fragment  of 
that  world  of  thoughts  in  which  the  prophet  moves.  Along 
with  it  his  eagle  glance  takes  in  the  present  circumstances  of 
the  "people,  the  relaxation  of  justice  under  the  rule  of  women 
and  boys,  the  far  future,  too,  where  ^'  Jahweh  has  removed 
men  far  away  and  the  desolation  has  been  great  in  the  midst 
of  the  land,''  where  the  rescued  tenth  is  again  given  up  to 
-destruction,  till  at  last  nothing  remains  of  the  fallen  oak 
except  its  stump — the  holy  seed  of  the  new  Israel  (vi.  11  ff.). 

How  eloquent,  too,  are  the  words  in  which  his  lofty 
thoughts  are  everywhere  expressed !  How  impressively  the 
prophet  can  utter  his  anger  in  the  very  first  speech,  how 
touchingly  he  can  mourn  over  the  city  which  had  formerly  been, 
so  faithful,  with  what  terrible  earnestness  can  he  threaten  with 
a  fire  which  none  can  extinguish  !  Again,  how  sweetly  can 
he  sing  (v.  1  ft'.)  of  Jahweh' s  vineyard,  how  warmly  can  ho 
comfort  and  streno^then  waverino^  faith  !  And  the  most 
wonderful  thino-  of  all,  recurrino-  now^iere  else  to  the  same 
degree,  is  that  in  all  the  vehement  storms  and  waves,  the 
manifold  varying  forms  of  Isaiah's  language,  we  never  for 
a  moment  lose  the  feehng  that  there  is  a  spirit  behind  all  this 
which  deeply  sympathizes  and  commiserates,  yet  is  subject  to 
no  weakness  and  no  disquiet,  because  it  is  sure  of  its  G-od  and 
blessed  in  Him. 

Here  again  we  must  profoundly  regret  that  so  little  has 
come  down  to  us  concerning  the  person  and  the  outer  life  of 
this  mighty  witness.  Jeshajalm  {i.e.,  Jahweh  helps),  the  son 
of  Amoz,  according  to  all  the  indications,  lived  and  worked 
exclusively  in  Jerusalem.  Like  himself,  his  two  sons,  whom 
he  mentions  (vii.  3  and  viii.  3),  bore  significant  names.  He 
mentions  (vi.  1)  the  year  of  Uzziah's  death  [ca.  740  B.C.)  as 
that   of  his  own  calling.     We    have    the    latest   trace   of  his 


56  §    3.    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED    MONARCHY. 

activity  in  the  oracles  belonging  to  the  time  of  Sennacherib^s 
invasion  (chaps,  xxx.  f.  and  xxxvii.  22  &.),  in  the  year  701, 
Chronology  therefore  would  interpose  no  obstacle  to  the 
credibility  of  the  legend  of  his  martj^^dom  under  Manasseh 
(and  that  by  sawing  asunder,  referred  to  perhaps  at  Heb, 
xi.  37).  But  this  was  probably  evolved  from  2  Kings  xxi.  16. 
For  it  would  be  difficult  to  believe  that  no  historical  statement 
has  survived  concerning  such  an  end  to  Isaiah's  life. 

The  Book  of  Isaiah  (chaps,  i.-xxxix.  ;  we  shall  have  to  speak 
of  chaps,  xl.-lxvi.,  the  so-called  Deutero-Isaiah  [and  Trite- 
Isaiah]  much  later)  has  come  down  to  us  in  a  form  which 
betrays  manifold  redactional  activity  in  times  far  apart  from 
each  other.  All  the  attempts  to  prove  a  continuous  arrangement 
in  the  order  of  time  or  events  are  to  be  regarded  as  failures. 
In  the  first  place  it  is  possible  to  distinguish  a  series  of 
sections  which  are  either  founded  on  a  later  enlargement  of 
genuine  oracles  (xi.  10 — xii.  5,  chap,  xxxii.  f.),  or  on  the  expan- 
sion of  an  Isaianic  nucleus  (chap,  xxiii),  or  finally,  on  the 
erroneous  intermingling  of  exilic  and  post-exilic  oracles 
(xiii.-xiv.,  xxiii.  2 1  ?  xxxiv.  f . ;  the  peculiar  apocalyptic 
passage,  chaps,  xxiv.-xxvii.,  cannot  have  originated  till  a  later, 
post-exilic  time).  The  historical  appendix,  chaps,  xxxvi.-xxxix., 
was  added  by  some  redactor,  who  took  it  from  2  Kings  xviii. 
13 — XX.  21,  partly  on  account  of  the  Isaianic  oracles  which  are 
given  there,  and  partly  as  a  key  to  the  historical  comprehen- 
sion of  those  utterances  of  Isaiah  which  refers  to  Sennacherib's 
invasion. 

When  all  this  has  been  removed  the  remainder  falls  easily 
into  three  groups.  I. :  Chaps,  i.-xi.  9,  oracles  concerning  Judah 
and  Jerusalem  alone.  Within  this  group  chaps,  ii.  to  iv.  or  v. 
evidently  form  a  distinct  collection,  with  a  special  title  from 
Isaiah's  own  hand;  it  retained  its  place  when  the  incomparable 
Prologue,  chap,  i.,  was  placed  at  the  head  and  provided  with 
a  special  title.  After  the  oldest  collection  in  chaps,  ii.-v.  it 
seems  that  Isaiah  placed  a  second,  which  opened  with  the 
account  of  his  call  (the  so-called  Inaugural  Vision,  chap.  vi.). 
This  explains  in  the   simplest  way  how  chap,  vi.,  which  we 


ISAIAH. MICAH.  57 

should  quite  expect  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  whole,  came  to 
stand  in  the  middle  of  the  first  group.  II.  :  Chaps,  xiv. 
24 — xxii.  25  exclusively  directed,  with  the  exception  of  the 
two  oracles  in  chap,  xxii.,  against  foreign  nations  (like  the- 
oracle  xiii.  f .,  xxi.,  xxiii.,  which  wo  have  distinguished  above), 
and  provided  by  a  redactor  with  the  special  designation  massdj. 
i.e.,  [solemn]  utterance.  III.  :  Chaps,  xxviii.-xxxi.,  the  so- 
called  Assyrian  Cycle.  Chap,  xxviii.  1-G  implies  the  existence 
of  Samaria;  but  the  prophet  has  probably  put  this  older 
section  in  the  forefront  as  an  introduction  in  order  to  follow  it 
by  a  declaration  that  Judah  is  in  the  same  condemuatiou. 
Hence  all  that  follows  xxviii.  7  may  belong  to  the  time  after 
Sargon's  death.  Chaps,  xxx.,  xxxi.  are  obviously  not  far 
distant  from  the  catastrophe  (701  B.C.). 

Isaiah's  contemporary,  Micah  (precisely,  Milihdyiih,  i.e.^ 
Who[is]like  Yah  [well]  ?),  of  Moresheth,  near  Gath,  in  the 
Judiean  lowland,  worked  in  the  same  spirit  and  the  same 
certainty  that  God  had  sent  him,  though  inferior  to  Isaiah  in 
majesty  of  diction.  The  title,  i.  1,  states  that  he  was  also 
active  under  Jotham  and  Ahaz  ;  but  according  to  the  weighty 
testimony  of  Jer.  xxvi.  18,  where  Micah  iii.  12  is  verbally 
quoted,  his  work  did  not  begin  till  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  But 
a  distinction  must  do  doubt  be  drawn  between  an  earlier  and 
a  later  period.  Chaps,  i.-iii.  form  a  connected  utterance,  and^ 
so  far  as  the  very  corrupt  text  allows  us  to  judge,  an  extremely 
vigorous  one,  in  which  Samaria  first  (consequeutly  prior  to 
722)  and  then  Judah  and  Jerusalem  are  threatened  with 
destruction  because  of  the  utter  failure  of  law  and  discipline, 
but,  above  all,  because  of  the  deep  corruption  of  all  the  leaders 
of  the  people,  and  the  carnal  reliance  placed  on  Jahweh's 
presence. 

No  kind  of  critical  suspicion  prevails  respecting  these  three 
chapters  (excepting  as  to  ii.  12  f.,  verses  which  are  perhaps 
only  in  the  wrong  place).  But  it  is  very  questionable  how 
much  of  chaps,  iv.-vii.  should  be  denied  to  Micah.  The  only 
point  on  which  there  is  practical  unanimity  is  that  chap.  vii. 
7-20,  with  its  totally  different  pre-suppositions,  cannot  have 


•58  §    3.    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    DIVIDED   MONARCHY. 

been  composed  earlier  than  tlie  Exile  (or  possibly  even  in  late 
post-exilic  times).  Chap,  vi.^  with  its  impressive  summary 
in  V.  8  of  all  prophetic  teaching,  and  chap.  vii.  1-6  are 
universally  ascribed  to  the  time  of  Manasseh,  but  some  scholars 
■do  not  deny  that  they  are  Micah's.  All  recognize  that  in  the 
present  text  of  chaps,  iv.  and  v.  thoroughly  heterogeneous 
^elements  have  been  worked  up — cf.  especially  iv.  10,  where 
the  taking  of  the  city  is  expected,  with  v.  11,  13,  where  its 
'deliverance  is  foretold.  Since  Micah  himself  confidently 
looks  forward  to  the  destruction  of  the  city,  iv.  9  f.,  14,  and 
v.  1-8,  as  well  as  the  original  form  of  9-14,  might  easily 
fbelong  to  him.  On  the  other  hand,  the  section  iv.  1-4,  which 
is  almost  identical  with  Isa.  ii.  2-4,  seems  to  have  been  subse- 
quently appended  to  chaps,  i.-iii.,  so  as  not  to  leave  off  with 
the  comfortless  prospect  of  iii.  12.  At  iv.  6-8,  on  the  contrary, 
a  state  of  deep  humiliation  for  Jerusalem,  and  the  loss  of  the 
^'  former  dominion ''  seem  to  be  implied. 


§  4.  FEOM  TBE  DESTRUCTION  OF  SAMARIA 
TO  THE  EXILE. 

1.  Naiium. — Zephaniaii. 

•Oltk  reference  to  tlie  later  activity  of  Isaiah  and  Micali  has 
ah-eady  carried  us  beyond  the  g-reat  catastrophe  of  the  year 
722,  which  brought  on  Samaria  the  long-threatened  destruction 
and  left  Judah  alone  on  the  scene.  The  new  position  thus 
created,  the  restriction  thenceforward  to  Judah  alone  of  all 
the  memories  of  a  great  past,  and  all  the  hopes  of  the  future 
too,  was  evidently  realized  by  but  few  in  the  anxious  time 
from  722  to  701,  when  men  w^ere  in  constant  dread  that  the 
now^-gigantic  power  of  Assjn-ia  might  suddenly  crush  them. 
When  the  God  who  was  enthroned  on  Zion  vindicated 
the  irrefragable  promise  of  His  prophet,  and  in  one  night 
triumphed  over  the  myriads  of  Assyria,  Ave  should  have  thought 
that  a  profound  movement,  the  consciousness  of  an  immense 
debt  of  gratitude,  would  necessarily  have  taken  hold  of  the 
whole  nation,  and  made  it  willingly  obedient  to  the  true 
prophets  of  God,  But  according  to  all  that  we  can  gather 
from  the  scanty  traditions  of  the  time  of  Manasseh;  mingled 
as  they  also  are  Avitli  all  sorts  of  later  additions,  something 
quite  different  happened.  The  deliverance  was  ascribed,  not 
to  the  God  of  Isaiah,  who  was  able  to  control  all  nations 
.  according  to  His  holy  will,  but  to  the  national  god  of  Israel, 
who  would  not  allow  his  habitation  to  be  violated,  or  the 
heaps  of  sacrifices  and  offerings  brought  to  him  to  remain 
unrewarded.  All  the  aberrations  of  Manasseh,  including  the 
sacrifice  of  children,  which  were  afterwards  summarily  set 
down  as  idolatry,  in  all  probability  arose  from  a  reaction 
against  Hezekiah^s  attempt  to  purify  the  service  of  Jahweh 
from  all  the  remnants  of  the  former  naturalistic  and  sensuous 
cultus.     The  much  innocent  blood  which  Manasseh,  according 


60       §  4.    FROM    THE    DESTRUCTION    OP    SAMARIA    TO    THE    EXILE. 

to  2  Kings  xxi.  16,  slied  in  Jerusalem,  must  liave  been  chiefly 
that  of  the  people  who  followed  Isaiah  and  Micah,  and  would 
not  adapt  themselves  to  this  turn  of  affairs. 

The  above-named  sections,  Micah  vi.  and  vii.  1-6,  enable  us 
to  see  a  long  way  into  the  circumstances  of  Manasseh^s  reign. 
But  besides  them  only  one  monument  of  prophecy  has  been 
preserved  to  us  from  the  whole  interval  between  Isaiah  and 
Zephaniah,  the  extremely  sublime  prophecy  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  Nineveh  by  Nahum  the  Elkoshite.  According  to 
Jerome,  Elkosh  was  in  Galilee.  But  this  does  not  imply  that 
Nahum  was  an  Israelite  :  on  the  contrary,  passages  like  i.  11 
(obviously  an  allusion  to  Sennacherib's  invasion),  i.  13,  ii.  1, 
will  not  permit  us  to  think  of  any  but  a  Judahite.  The  precise 
date  of  the  oracle  is  doubtful.  On  the  one  side  we  get  the 
impression  that  the  prophet  retained  a  vivid  recollection  of 
the  Assyrian  invasion  (i.  11,  ii.  3)  :  and  earlier  critics  wished 
on  this  account  to  put  Nahum  back  into  the  eighth  century. 
On  the  other  side,  the  wdiole  tone  of  the  oracle  points  to- 
an  imminently  threatening  danger  to  Nineveh  :  hence  the  more 
recent  critics  think  mostly  of  the  siege  by  Cyaxares  and 
Nabopalassar.  But  it  may  still  be  questioned  whether  such 
passages  as  ii.  2  and  iii.  14,  on  which  the  chief  reliance  has 
been  placed,  are  not  rather  to  be  put  down  to  poetic  art 
which  can  make  the  future  most  vividly  present.  If  we  add 
that  the  devastation  of  the  Egyptian  Thebes,  mentioned 
iii,  8  ff.,  is  obviously  remembered  very  vividly  and  in  all 
probability  is  the  conquest  of  Thebes  by  Esarhaddon  or 
Assurbanipal,  we  shall  be  rather  inclined  to  come  down  to  the- 
time  between  670  and  660  as  the  date  of  Nahum.  For  the 
rest,  Nahum  is  rightly  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  difficult 
of  the  prophets  :  this  difficulty  comes  both  from  the  poetically 
bold,  nay  fiery  phraseology,  and  from  the  manifold  corruptions- 
of  the  text."^ 

*  "  Der  Untergang  Ninevehs  und  die  Weissagungschrift  des  Nahum  von 
Elkosch,"  by  Col.  A.  Billerbeck  and  Dr.  A.  Jeremias  (in  Delitzsch  and  Haupt's- 
"Beitriigen  zur  semit.  Sprachwissenschaft,"  III.  [1895],!)  gives  a  thorough 
discussion  of  the  text  (also  with  reference  to  iiiilitary  technical  terms). 


THE  HISTORICAL  WORK  OP  THE  JEHOVIST.  61 

Zeplianiali's  date  can  be  determined  with  more  certainty 
than  Nahum^s.  When  his  genealogy  is  traced  back  at  i.  1,  to 
Hezekiah  as  his  great-great-grandfather,  it  would  be  difficult 
to  think  of  any  other  than  King-  Hezekiah.  If  Amariah,  his 
great-grandfather,  was  born  before  Hczekiah's  accession, 
Zephaniah  may  have  been  born  about  C55.  Of  his  oracles 
chap.  i.  at  least,  with  its  sharp  denunciations  of  the  idolatry 
and  the  outrages  practised  in  Judah,  must  be  assigned  to 
the  time  previous  to  Josiah's  purification  of  the  cultus  (622). 
According  to  an  opinion  which  is  shared  by  many  moderns, 
the  Scythian  invasion  {ca.  628)  occasioned  Zephaniah's 
preaching  of  repentance,  and  supplied  him  with  the  colours 
for  depicting  the  terrible  judgment-day  of  Jahweli.  Yet  it 
may  be  questioned  whether  iii.  6,  which  is  specially  adduced 
in  favour  of  this,  has  not  the  victories  of  the  Modes  and 
Chaldaeans  in  view ;  besides  which  there  are  other  grounds 
for  placing  chaps,  ii.-iii.  13  later  than  Josiah^s  reform  of  the 
cultus.  BuDDE  (Theol.  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1893,  p.  393  ff.) 
has  at  all  events  made  it  very  possible  that  ii.  4-15  is  a  later 
interpolation.  But  it  is  almost  universally  agreed  that  the 
conclusion  (iii.  14-20)  cannot  have  originated  earlier  than  the 
Exile  or  the  immediately  succeeding  period. 


2.  The  Historical  Work  of   the  Jehovist. — Deuteronomy. 

We  have  no  means  of  knowing  to  what  extent  historical 
writing  was  practised  in  the  whole  of  this  interval,  perhaps  in 
the  shape  of  a  renewed  recasting  and  supplementing  of  older 
works,  as  is  natural  in  a  literature  propagated  by  manuscripts 
and  devoted  almost  exclusively  to  the  interests  of  religion. 
But  we  have  a  proof  that  the  older  monuments  of  this  class 
already  enjoyed  a  sort  of  canonical  dignity.  Otherwise  it 
would  be  difficult  to  understand  how  men  came  to  think  of 
so  careful  a  blending  of  two  ancient  historical  works  as  we 
have  in  the  union  of  the  Jahwist  (/)  and  the  older  Elohist  {E), 


62       §    4.    FROM    THE    DESTEUCTION    OF    SAMARIA    TO    THE    EXILE. 

which  probably  was  effected  in  the  second  half  of  the  seventb 
century.  The  fundamental  principle  of  the  redactor  (who  is- 
usually  designated  JE>'  or  Rje,  i.e.,ihe  '^  Jehovistic^^  redactor) 
doubtless  was  to  sacrifice  nothing  that  bore  the  marks  of  an 
independent  notice.  Occasionally  he  allows  only  one  source 
to  speak  for  a  while  :  the  narrative  of  the  other  is  then 
brought  in  incidentally  {e.g.  E,  Gen.  xxxi.  4  ff.,  as  parallel  to 
J,  XXX,  31  fF.),  or,  if  the  discrepancy  seemed  too  great,  is  left 
out  entirely.  But  if  the  parallel  accounts  substantially  agree, 
the  phraseology  of  both  sources  (especially  with  retention  of 
both  divine  names)  is  adduced  in  such  close  and  apt  combina- 
tion that  the  successful  analysis  of  the  sources  demands  most 
careful  observation  of  the  vocabulary  and  linguistic  usage  of 
each  source.  Not  unfrequently  these  indications  fail  and  we 
have  to  be  content  to  speak  of  JE.  A  translation  corre- 
sponding to  the  original  phraseolog}^  enables  the  observant 
reader  to  detect  the  manifold  joints  and  seams  which  were 
necessarily  evolved  when  narratives  almost  identical  in. 
language  were  placed  side  by  side.  Thus  at  Gen.  xxvii.  4  (/) 
there  is  a  fresh  beginning  of  what  had  been  begun  at  v.  21  {E). 
At  xxxvii.  28  Midianite  merchants  came  up  to  Joseph's 
brethren  :  these  then  drew  him  out  of  the  well  and  sold  him 
to  the  IsJimaeUtes  (cf.  the  analysis  in  the  ^'' Surve}^ '') — a 
striking  instance  of  the  manner  in  which  the  redactor  some- 
times despaired  of  reconciling  differences  which  might  have 
been  got  rid  of  with  the  utmost  ease.  The  redactor's  own 
additions  must  have  been  few:  we  regard  Gen.  xx.  18  as  an 
indisputable  example. 

About  the  same  time  as  a  canonical  history  of  tlie  primaeval 
age  was  thus  produced  another  task  of  extreme  importance- 
was  undertaken  in  the  circle  of  the  disciples  of  the  prophets  :■ 
— the  formation  of  a  comprehensive  corpus  of  ritual  and  civil 
laws  which  should  re-model  the  prevalent  practice  in  the 
commonwealth  and  in  the  cultus.  The  relapse  under 
Manasseh  to  the  natural istically  inclined  popular  religion  had 
shown  that  no  improvement  of  circumstances  was  conceivable 
so  lono-  as  the  service  of  Jahweh  was  abandoned  to   all  the 


DEUTERONOMY.  63 

arbitrariness  and  all  tlie  superstition,  tlie  intermixture  even  of 
all  sorts  of  ancestral  heathen  customs,  which  prevailed  np  and 
down  the  country  at  the  local  sanctuaries,  and  especially  at 
the  high-places  {hdmoth),  some  of  which  were  primjoval. 
There  was  only  one  remedy :  the  strict  limitation  of  the 
.sacrifices  and  festivals  to  one  legitimate  sanctuary,  ^.e.,  self- 
evidently,  to  the  temple  in  Jerusalem.  The  issue  of  these 
considerations  was  the  original  form  of  our  Deuteronomy,  the 
so-called  Ur-Deuteronomy. 

It  has  long  been  recognized  that  the  Book  of  the  Law 
which  the  chief  priest  Hilkiah  found  in  the  temple  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  Josiah,  cannot  have  been  the  whole 
Pentateuch,  but  only  the  original  form  of  Deuteronomy. 
This  is  confirmed  step  by  step  by  the  detailed  account  in 
2  Kings  xxii.  3  ff.  Shaphan,  the  scribe,  happening  to  visit 
the  temple,  Hilkiah  acquaints  him  with  the  finding  of  the 
law-book,  and  hands  it  over  to  Shaphan,  who  reads  it.  For 
a  merely  cursory  perusal  of  the  Pentateuch  at  least  five  or 
six  hours  would  be  requisite  :  for  that  of  the  original 
Deuteronom}^  half  an  hour  would  be  ample.  Then  Shaphan 
repairs  to  the  King,  gives  him  a  short  account  of  the  execution 
of  his  commission,  and  continues  :  "  Hilkiah  the  priest  hath 
given  me  a  book.^'  And  Shaphan  read  it  to  the  King.  The 
King  is  quite  horrified  at  its  contents.  He  rends  his  clothes, 
and  sends  the  priest  and  others  to  the  prophetess  Huldah 
to  obtain  through  her  a  pronouncement  from  Jahweh  con- 
cerning this  book.  Next  he  assembles  at  the  temple  all 
the  notables,  together  with  all  the  priests  and  prophets 
and  the  whole  people ;  reads  to  them  all  the  contents  of  the 
newly-found  law,  and  solemnly  binds  himself,  with  the  whole 
people,  to  observe  it  most  strictly.  The  ensuing  narrative  of 
the  ritual  reform  in  the  temple,  in  Jerusalem,  and  all  the  rest 
of  the  laud,  brings  positively  incredible  facts  to  light.  We  see 
from  it  (even  from  the  original  narrative,  apart  from  the 
many  intensifying  additions  of  later  date),  that  not  only  the 
open  country  but  the  capital  and  the  temple  were  practically 
crammed  with   the    signs    of    a    naturalistic    JaliAveh-worship 


'64       §    4.    FROil    THE    DESTRCTCTIOX    OP    SAMARIA    TO    THE    EXILE. 

-and  absolutely  lieathen  idolatry,  and  all  this  under  tlie  eyes 
of  so  pious  a  king  as  Josiah,  and  under  tlie  eyes  of  tlie 
temple  priesthood. 

The  strong  emotion,  the  deep  grief  of  the  King,  can 
•obviously  be  explained  only  by  the  fact  that  when  the  law- 
book was  read  he  perceived  something  entirely  new,  opposed 
outright  to  the  prevailing  custom.  This  new  thing  is  the 
demand  for  the  concentration  of  the  worship  at  one  place,  and 
the  thorough  abolition  of  all  remains  of  the  previous  Nature- 
worship.  Both  are  enjoined  most  emphatically  at  the  very 
outset  of  the  Code  proper  (chap.  xii.).  In  accordance  with 
•this  it  is  brought  out  prominently  at  2  Kings  xxiii.  21  ff., 
that  a  strictly  legal  celebration  of  the  Passover  {i.e.,  by  the 
-whole  of  the  people  at  the  central  sanctuary)  was  held 
under  Josiah  for  the  first  time  since  the  Judges.  The  more 
rancient  festival-laws  know  nothing  about  such  a  demand  :  it 
is  advanced  for  the  first  time  at  Deut.  xvi.,  and  evidently  as 
^n  innovation. 

The  fact  that  the  law-book  was  found  by  the  chief  priest 
Hilkiah,  and  handed  by  him  to  the  scribe — naturally  to  be 
given  in  turn  to  the  King — has  given  rise  to  the  conjecture 
that  the  priest  had  a  hand  in  its  composition,  and  that  the 
whole  affair  was  a  '^  pious  fraud."  All  things  considered,  we 
must  rather  conclude  that  Hilkiah  himself  was  surprised  at 
the  discovery.  The  position  of  the  priests  in  Deuteronomy  is 
not  at  all  such  as  to  explain  any  special  zeal  on  their  part  for 
its  composition  and  introduction.  No  doubt  the  centralization 
of  the  worship  assured  to  the  priests  at  Jerusalem  a  consider- 
;able  increase  of  influence  and  revenue,  although  the  payments 
to  the  priests  were  in  themselves  very  modest  (Deut.  xviii. 
■3ff.).  But  then  every  privilege  was  nullified  by  the  express 
•direction  (xviii.  6  fF.)  that  the  rural  priests  should  thence- 
forward have  a  right  to  officiate  in  the  temple  and  share  in 
the  priests'  dues.  We  shall,  indeed,  see  that  this  direction 
was  not  permanently  carried  out :  2  Kings  xxiii.  9  knows  only 
of  the  rural  priests  participating  in  the  meal  offerings,  not  of 
their  right  to  officiate.   Bat  the  Deuteronomic  writer  obviously 


DEUTERONOMY.  65 

meant  the  direction  at  xviii.  G  ff.  to  be  understood  seriously, 
and  this  is  a  proof  that  he  must  be  sought,  not  in  the  priestly, 
but  in  the  prophetic  circles.  That  the  book  came  to  light 
during  building  alterations  in  the  temple  is  the  first  evidence 
of  its  having  been  actually  deposited  there  by  an  unknown 
hand,  in  the  sure  hope  that  it  would  be  found  sooner  or  later 
and  then  would  attain  its  end.  But  secondly,  one  cannot  see 
why,  amidst  the  most  favourable  conditions  imaginable  for 
a  reform  of  worship,  they  should  have  waited  till  the  eigh- 
teenth year  of  Josiah  to  bring  out  in  such  a  way  a  work 
which  must  long  have  been  urgently  required.  This  question 
answers  itself  if  we  admit  that  the  book  was  composed  in 
a  time  of  distress,  possibly  under  Manasseh,  and  deposited  in 
the  hope  of  a  better  time,  but  that  the  author  had  died 
meanwhile. 

It  must,  no  doubt,  be  admitted  that  even  in  its  original 
form  the  law-book  claimed  to  be  founded  on  an  address 
delivered  by  Moses  to  the  people  immediately  before  his 
decease.  Thus  the  statement  at  xxxi.  9  ff.,  that  Moses  wrote 
down  "  this  law  "  and  delivered  it  to  the  priests  to  be  read  at 
every  Feast  of  Tabernacles  in  the  Year  of  Kelease,  can  only 
refer  to  the  original  Deuteronomy.  But  the  further  conclusion 
that  this  is  a  work  of  fraud  overlooks  a  fact  which  has  lono- 

o 

been  recognized.  As  regards  speeches,  put  into  the  mouths 
of  older  authorities,  the  idea  of  literary  property  is  altogether 
unknown,  both  to  the  Old  Testament  writers  and  to  antiquity 
in  general.  The  moment  the  conviction  seems  justified  that 
a  certain  statement  is  in  the  mind  and  spirit  of  that  higher 
authority  and  must  contribute  to  the  welfare  of  the  people,  its 
ascription  to  that  authority  is  justified.  This  applies  as 
forcibly  to  the  original  Deuteronomy  as  to  the  so-called 
Priests'  Code,  which  in  innumerable  passages  introduces 
Moses  as  the  speaker,  or  to  "  Ecclesiastes,'^  which  makes 
a  Solomon  testify  to  the  vanity  of  all  things.  We  do  not  here 
touch  on  the  frequency  with  which  the  Deuteronomic  writer 
drops  the  veil  and  lets  it  be  seen  that  he  is  really  addressing 
a  people  which  has   long  been   settled  and  is  living  in  the 

5 


66       §    4.    FROM    THE    DESTRUCTION   OF    SAMARIA    TO    THE    EXILE. 

midst  of  a  fairly  advanced  civilization — tlius^  as  early  as 
xii.  2,  in  the  perfect  tense,  "  have  worshipped  "  [Luther  and 
E.V.  '^ served'^]. 

The  ■  question  as  to  what  portions  of  the  present  Deuter- 
onomy belonged  to  the  original  Deuteronomy  is  an  extremely 
complicated  one,  and  has  become  more  and  more  a  matter  of 
controversy.  The  comparison  of  ii.  15,  on  the  one  hand,  with 
V.  3  ff.,  ix.  7  ff.,  22  if.,  xi.  2  fp.,  on  the  other,  shows  that  the 
Prologue,  up  to  iv.  40,  or  at  an}^  rate  chaps,  i.-iii.,  can  only 
be  regarded  as  a  revision  of  the  original  Prologue.  The  yet 
farther-going  assertion  that  the  original  Deuteronomy  did  not 
begin  with  chap,  v.,  but  with  chap.  xii.  (as  the  commencement 
of  the  legislation)  has  been  met  by  distinguished  investigators 
with  another  assertion,  viz.,  that  the  ^'  Exhortations ''  in 
chaps,  v.-xii.  were  indeed  composed  later  than  the  laws,  but 
by  the  same  hand.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  pretty  generally 
recognized  that  chap,  xxvii.  and  the  Epilogue,  beginning  at 
chap,  xxviii.  69,  with  the  possible  exception  of  xxxi.  9  ff.,  cannot 
have  been  part  of  the  original  Deuteronomy.  But  we  must  go 
a  step  further.  Closer  observation  of  the  legal  part  has 
discovered  that  we  there  have  to  do  with  all  sorts  of  repe- 
titions which  can  be  satisfactorily  explained  only  in  one  way. 
The  original  Deuteronomy  must  have  passed  through  at  least 
two  revisions,  in  many  respects  harmonious  but  in  others 
diverse.  Our  present  Deuteronomy  is  the  result  of  an  amal- 
gamation of  these,  thought  by  most  to  have  been  effected  in 
the  course  of  the  Babylonian  Exile  and  not  to  have  been 
accomplished  without  all  kinds  of  final  additions."^ 

*  W.  Staerk,  in  "  Das  Deuteronomium,  sein  Inhalt  u.  seine  literarisclie 
Form"  (Lpzg.,  1894),  attempted  a  restoration  of  the  law-book  presented  to 
King  Josiali,  based  mainly  on  the  observation  that  the  people  are  addressed 
partly  in  the  singular,  partly  in  the  plural.  Independently  of  Staerk,  C.  Steuer- 
NAGEL  ("  Die  Entstehung  des  deuteronomischen  Gesetzes,  kritisch  u.  biblisch- 
theologisch  untersucht")  has  subjected  it  to  an  exceedingly  acute  analysis, 
founded  on  the  same  observation.  The  result  is  that  neither  the  Thou-source  nor 
the  Ye-source  is  a  strictly  homogeneous  and  original  v^ork.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Deuteronomic  fundamental  law  (relating  to  the  concentration  of  the  worship  at 
Jerusalem)  forms  the  starting  point.     From  the  union  of  this  fundamental  law 


DEUTERONOMY.  67 

This  does  not  render  it  impossible  for  the  present  form  of 
the  nucleus  of  Deuteronomy  (designated  D  in  the  Survey)  to 
bear  an   almost   entirely  homogeneous  stamp.      And   if  we 
•leave  out  the  section  xiv.  1-21,  which  strongly  reminds  us  of 
the  so-called  Law  of  Holiness  (see  below),  and  can  scarcely 
have  belonged  to  the  original  Deuteronomy,  it  is  the  spirit  of 
prophetism  which  everywhere  meets   us   in   these  laws.     It 
reveals  itself  on  the  one  side  in  its  insistence  on  the  main 
thing,  i.e.,  undivided,  obedient   devotion  to  the  God  of  the 
fathers.     Immediately  on  the  inculcation  of  the  fundamental 
truth,  '^^  Jahweh  is  our  God,  Jahweh  alone,'^"^  (vi.  4)  follows 
the  demand  that  they  shall  love  Him  with  all  their  heart,  all 
their  mind,  and  all  their  strength.     This  love  is  founded  on 
the  hearty  gratitude  of  the  people  for  God^s  having  first  loved 
them,   notwithstanding  all  their  unworthiness,   chosen  them 
for  His  possession,  redeemed  them  from  bondage,  and  richly 
blessed    them    (viii.    10  ff.;    ix.   5).      And    God    demands   no 
return  for  all  this,  save  that  the  people  will  love  Him  again, 
'walk   in  His   ways,   and  be   of  circumcised  heart  (x.  12  ff.; 
3:i.  1,  xiii.,  &c.). 

On  the  other  side,  the  spirit  of  prophetism  is  revealed  in 
the  numerous  directions  which  betray  so  noble  and  true 
a  humanity,  nay,  such  ethical  delicacy,  that  an  evangelical 
strain  in   this   legislation  has  been    quite  justifiably  spoken 

with  the  legal  enactments  arises  the  fundamental  Deuteronomic  collection.  The 
latter  underwent  a  double  revision  in  the  "  Sources  of  the  Elders "  and  the 
"  T//o!<-source,"  other  sources  of  laws  being  utilized  both  times.  From  the 
uniting  the  "Sources  of  the  Elders"  with  utterances  of  another  kind  the  Fc-source 
arose ;  by  the  blending  of  the  latter  with  the  Thoii-somce  and  a  few  additions 
a  redactor  (Di)  produced  the  law-book  which  was  presented  to  King  Josiah,  and 
this — apart  from  a  few  exilic  and  post-exilic  additions — is  in  the  main  identical 
with  our  Deuteronomy.  Steuernagel  thus,  in  opposition  to  the  view  which 
formerly  prevailed,  puts  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy  in  the  time  previous  to 
Josiah's  ritual  reform.  According  to  him  the  fundamental  collection  may 
belong  to  the  eighth  century :  the  chief  redactor  (D^)  would  have  to  be  placed 
about  650  at  the  latest. 

*  According  to  another  explanation,  •'Jahweh  our  God,  Jahweh  is  one"  (or 
"  is  one  Jahweh"),  that  is,  in  contrast  to  the  distinction  of  divers  Jahwehs  as 
the  special  divinities  of  certain  sanctuaries. 

5  * 


68        §    4.    FROM    THE    DESTRUCTION    OF   SAMARIA   TO    THE    EXILE. 

of.  From  the  time  of  Amos,  it  was  tlie  Alpha  and  Omega 
of  prophetic  preaching  to  insist  on  the  practice  of  justice  and 
righteousness,  to  warn  against  the  oppression  of  the  poor 
and  helpless;  and,  in  like  manner,  the  Deuteronomic  Avriter 
unvveariedly  pleads  for  the  poor,  the  widows  and  orphans, 
even  for  the  strangers  and  slaves.  What  a  glimpse  we  get  of 
the  legislator's  heart  through  such  prescriptions  as  xxiv.  10 ff. 
and  xxiv.  19  ff.,  compared  with  the  customs  which  prevailed 
in  the  rest  of  the  ancient  world. 


3.  The  Book  of  Kings. 

The  natural  consequence  of  the  great  innovation,  the 
abolition  of  worship  at  the  high-places,  was  that  an  entirely 
new  view  was  taken  of  all  the  preceding  history.  The 
Deuteronomic  demand  for  unity  of  worship  did  not,  indeed, 
extend  to  the  time  before  Solomon's  building  of  the  temple. 
It  came  into  force  when  Jahweh  had  made  peace  for  His 
people  before  all  surrounding  enemies,  and  had  chosen  for 
Himself  a  place  where  He  would  have  His  name  dwell.  But 
after  the  building  of  the  temple,  all  worship  away  from  the 
temple  was  sin ;  and  this  applied  particularly  to  the  worship 
in  the  northern  kingdom,  especially  because  this  was  con- 
nected with  bull-worship  (the  '''sin  of  Jeroboam '').  The 
work  in  which  this  new  view  of  things  found  appropriate 
expression  is  "  The  Book  of  Kings.''  Originally  one 
book,  it  was  divided  into  two  in  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Bible,"^  thereafter  in  the  German  and  (since  1518)  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible.  The  Book  of  Kings  iucludes  three  great 
groups  :  I. — The  History  of  Solomon  (1  Kings  i.-xi.).  II. — The 
History  of  the  Divided  Kingdoms  up  to  the  destruction  of 
Samaria  (1   Kings  xii.  to    2   Kings    xvii.),    concluding    with 

*  The  Greek  and  Latin  Bible  reckon  our  two  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  as 
four  "  Books  of  the  Kingdoms."  Our  Books  of  Kings  are,  therefore,  the  third 
and  fourth  Books  of  the  Kingdoms  (or  briefly ,  "  of  the  Kings  "). 


THE    BOOK    OF    KINGS.  69 

a  lengthy  consideration  of  tlie  reasons  of  its  fall,  and  notices 
about  its  re-colonization.  III. — The  History  of  Judali,  down 
to  the  kindness  shown  to  Jehoiachin,  5G1  B.C.  (2  Kings  xviii.- 
.XXV.).  The  kings  are  all  arranged  in  the  exact  order  of 
their  accession.  Thus  Jeroboam  I.  is  followed  by  the  three 
kings  of  Judah  who  were  contemporary  with  him,  then  by 
the  six  kings  of  Israel,  who  ascended  the  throne  during 
Asa's  lifetime,  &c. 

A  superficial  glance  is  enough  to  show  that  the  book  is  not 
intended  to  be  a  compendium  of  the  external  history  of  Israel. 
The  author  could  point  to  other  sources  for  this.  He  aims 
at  giving  a  sort  of  Church  History,  above  all,  a  history  of 
prophetic  action  in  both  kingdoms.  For  this  purpose  he  has 
extracted  the  material  from  more  comprehensive  works,  and 
at  the  same  time  pronounced  his  judgment  on  all  the  kings, 
and  often  on  their  individual  acts.  Deuteronomy  is  the 
standard  by  which  he  judges  everywhere.  The  spirit  and  the 
linguistic  usage  of  that  book  asserts  itself  in  such  a  way  that 
the  analysis  of  the  passages  due  to  the  author  of  the  Book  o£ 
Kings  himself  can  in  almost  every  case  be  carried  out  with 
certainty.  Hence  the  designation  of  the  author  and  of  the 
writers  related  to  him  as  ''  Deuteronomists  '^  is  thoroughly 
justified. 

When  each  king  of  Judah  and  Israel  is  introduced  in  turn, 
one  and  the  same  scheme  is  used  with  painful  uniformity. 
The  date  of  accession  is  given,  according  to  the  regnal  year  of 
the  contemporary  king  of  the  other  kingdom;  the  length  of 
reign  ;  for  the  kings  of  Judah,  the  age  at  accession  and  the 
mother's  name;  for  all  alike  the  verdict  on  their  religious 
character.  For  the  kings  of  Israel  this  regularly  runs  :  "  He 
did  that  which  displeased  Jahweh,"  or  ^'  he  walked  in  the 
ways  of  Jeroboam,  and  in  his  sins,  wherewith  he  made  Israel 
to  sin.^'  The  kings  of  Judah  are  judged  diversely,  sometimes 
being  compared  with  their  predecessors,  or,  as  in  Hezekiah's 
case,  with  David.  To  all  of  them,  liowever,  even  the  best, 
down  to  Josiah,  it  is  imputed  as  a  fault  that  they  tolerated 
the  worship  at  the  high-places   (I  K.  xv.    14:  xxii.  44).     The 


70         §  4.  PROM    THE    DESTRUCTION    OP    SAMARIA    TO    THE    EXILE. 

author  assumes  that  all  the  kings  ought  to  have  known  anci 
observed  the  Deuteronomic  law. 

If  we  inquire  whence  the  author  took  the  historical  material 
which  he  records,  sometimes  more  fully,  but  usually,  where 
histories  of  prophets  are  not  in  question,  in  the  briefest 
manner  conceivable,  the  reply  must  be :  From  the  works 
which  he  quotes  for  almost  all  the  kings  for  everything 
'^else  which  remains  to  be  said  about  each,"  i.e.,  from  the 
''^Book  of  the  History  of  the  Kings  of  Judah,"  and  the 
^'  Book  of  the  History  of  the  Kings  of  Israel."  For,  in  all 
probability,  the  ^^Book  of  the  History  of  Solomon"  [8a 
in  the  Survey),  quoted  at  1  xi.  41,  as  well  as  the  Ephraimite 
histories  of  prophets,  and  other  narratives  (P,  F-,  P~),  already 
mentioned  by  us  at  p.  41  f.,  were  known  to  our  author  merely 
as  portions  of  those  history-books  about  the  kings  of  Israel 
and  Judah.  It  must  even  be  asked  whether  we  actually  have 
to  think  of  two  separate  works  or  of  one  Book  of  Kings  cited 
under  diverse  names,  according  as  it  treated  of  kings  of 
Israel  or  Judah.  This  seems  to  us  a  very  probable  idea,  and 
we  shall  therefore  henceforward  designate  the  book  simply  as 
^*^the  great  King's  Book." 

From  several  additions  made  to  the  quotations  of  this  work 
in  our  Books  of  Kings,  it  is  clear  that  it  must  have  treated  both 
of  martial  deeds  abroad  [e.g.,  1  K.  xiv.  19;  2  K.  xiv.  15,  28), 
and  of  conspiracies  (1  K.  xvi.  20;  2  K.  xv.  15),  and  Government 
measures  (especially  buildings,  1  K.xv.  23,xxii.39;  2  K.  xx  20) 
at  home.  Once  only  (2  K.  xxi.  17)  are  the  ''^sins"  of  a  king 
mentioned,  and  there,  doubtless,  transgressions  of  the  legitimate 
ritual  are  meant.  Yet  it  is  questionable  whether  this  religious 
pronouncement  was  found  in  the  great  King's  Book,  or  was 
made  by  the  Deuteronomist  himself. 

We  have,  for  the  most  part,  no  means  of  determining  the 
sources  on  which  the  great  King's  Book  drew.  Leaving  aside 
the  above-named  extracts  which  its  author  probably  made 
from  larger  independent  works,  there  remain  a  fair  number 
of  isolated  notices  which  bear  the  stamp  of  great  simplicity, 
and  therefore  of  reliableness.     Where  w^e  seem  to  have  their 


THE    BOOK    OP    KINGS.  71 

very  phraseology  they  are  designated  K  in  the  Survey.  But  all 
kinds  of  statements  which  the  Deuteronomist  has  interwoven 
in  his  introductory  formulas  belong  to  this  class,  especially 
the  length  of  the  reigns  and,  for  the  kings  of  Judah,  the 
mother's  name.  All  this  material,  which  we  designate  K,  was 
probably  taken  from  a  kind  of  Chronicles,  begun  early  in  both 
kingdoms,  and  afterwards  continued  down  to  a  late  period, 
the  work  of  continuation  being  taken  up  by  one  writer  after 
another,  as  was  in  part  the  case  with  our  mediceval  Chronicles. 
For  instance,  the  note  at  2  K.  viii.  22,  "unto  this  day,"  cannot 
have  been  written  by  a  person  who  was  aware  of  Amaziah's 
victory  (xiv.  7  ;  cf.  xvi.  6).  Yet  we  must  undoubtedly  abandon 
the  still  prevalent  opinion  that  those  chronicles  are  identical 
with  the  official  annals  of  the  two  kingdoms.  In  proof  of  that 
opinion,  appeal  has  been  made  to  the  supposed  mention  of  a 
royal  annalist  under  David  (2  Sam.  viii.  16,  xx.  24),  Solomon 
(1  Kings  iv.  3),  and  Hezekiah  (2  Kings  xviii.  18,  37).  But 
the  expression  in  question  {mazkir)  cannot  really  mean  any- 
thing but  an  official  who  ''^brings  to  remembrance"  the  events 
of  the  reign  before  the  king,  and  is  therefore  a  reporting 
counsellor,  corresponding  to  the  vizier  of  the  Mohammedan 
rulers,  or  to  our  "  chancellor."  With  this  it  agrees  that  the 
mazkir  is  reckoned  amongst  the  highest  officials,  being  placed 
before  the  high  priest  in  the  Second  Book  of  Samuel.  But, 
considering  the  repeated  changes  of  dynasty,  which  were 
often  effected  by  assassination,  it  is  very  improbable  that 
there  were  official  annals  in  Israel.  There  are  also  notices 
concerning  the  kings  of  Judah,  in  all  probability  taken  from 
the  great  King's  Book,  which  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the 
son  of  the  king  in  question  took  care  to  have  inserted  in  the 
official  annals.  This  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  author 
of  the  great  King's  Book  did  not  frequently  make  use  of 
very  ancient  documents  and  notes  (amongst  other  examples, 
cf.  1  iv.  1  ff.,  iv.  7  ff.,  V.  2  f.,  and  the  dating  of  the  building 
of  the  temple  by  pre-exilic  names  of  months  at  vi.  37  f.,  taken, 
perhaps,  from  an  inscription  in  the  temple).  In  some  cases 
we  come  across  parallel  accounts,  concerning  which  it  is  diffi- 


72        §  4.  FR03I    THE    DESTRUCTION    OF    SAMAKIA    TO    THE    EXILE. 

cult  to  say  what  is  their  liistorical  worth,  and  whether  they  were 
admitted  by  the  author  of  the  great  King's  Book  or  were  first 
adopted  by  the  Deuteronomist  (1  K.  ix.  2o,  xi.  13  ff.;  2  K.  xviii. 
14  ff.,  xxiii.  8b  and  19  f. ;  much  else  of  this  kind  is  assijrned  to 
definite  sources  in  the  Survey,  but  with  a  ?).  It  is  universally 
recognized  that  in  2  K.  xix.  10  ff.  [K-  in  the  Survey)  there 
is  a  parallel  to  xviii.  17  ff.,  which  9b  has  turned  into  an 
independent  account. 

The  reference  to  the  great  King's  Book  is  found  with  all 
the  kings  of  Israel  except  Joram  (obviously  because  in  the 
present  arrangement  of  the  material  there  is  no  room  for  it) 
and  the  last  king,  Hoshea.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not 
wanting  with  Zimri,  who  reigned  a  week,  and  Shallum,  who 
reigned  a  month.  Nor  is  it  lacking  with  any  of  the  kings  of 
Judah,  down  to  Jehoiakim,  except  Ahaziah  (for  the  same 
reason  as  witli  Joram  of  Israel)  and  Jehoahaz,  who  did  not 
really  reign.  The  latest  reference  being  to  Jehoiakim,  we 
must  hold  that  the  great  King's  Book  extended  as  far  as  his 
reign,  and  the  only  remaining  question  is  as  to  when  the 
Deuteronomist  prepared  his  excerpt. 

The  answer  seems  easy.  At  2  K.  xxv.  27  ff.  the  favour 
shown  to  Jehoiakim  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  after  his  cap- 
tivity (561  B.C.)  is  mentioned,  and  his  death  implied.  The 
Deuteronomist,  therefore,  wrote  at  the  earliest  date  about 
oGO,  in  the  Exile.  With  this  it  agrees  that  at  1  K.  v.  4  all  the 
kings  west  of  the  Euphrates  are  spoken  of  as  on  that  side  the 
river,  and  that  in  various  passages  (1  K.  viii.  44  ff.,  ix.  1  ff . ; 
2  K.  xvii.  19  f.,  xxi.  7  ff.,  xxii.  15  ff.,  xxiii.  26  f.)  the  exile  of  the 
people  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  presupposed.  Yet 
it  has  long  been  recognized  that  many  other  jDassages  witness 
quite  as  certainly  to  the  pre-exilic  standpoint  of  the  Deutero- 
nomist (thusl  K.  viii.  15ff'.,  xi.  29  ff.;  2  K.  xvii.  21  ff.  and 41), 
and  the  remark  has  justly  been  made  that  the  cultus-reform 
under  Josiah  could  not  have  been  so  narrated  by  any  one 
who  did  not  continue  to  attach  to  it  the  hope  of  the  salvation 
of  the  commonwealth. 

Two  redactions  of  our  present  Books  of  Kings  must  therefore 


THE    BOOK    OF    KINGS.  73 

be  distinguislied.  The  first  (soraevvlicre  about  GOO,  in  the 
Survey  Vt)  reached  at  least  to  2  K.  xxiii.  30,  probably  to 
xxiv.  1.  The  second  (designated  Dt^  in  the  Survey)  added 
the  conclusion,  down  to  xxv.  30,  and  all  kinds  of  notices 
-elsewhere  (see  above).  Its  religious  standpoint  is,  in  one 
particular,  stricter  even  than  that  of  the  first  redactor.  The 
latter  (1  K.  iii.  2)  looked  on  the  worship  at  the  high  phices 
^n'lor  to  the  building  of  the  temple  as  not  blameworthy  ;  bub 
the  second  redactor  (v.  3)  regarded  it  as  a  fault  in  Solouion 
that  he  sacrificed  at  the  great  high-place  in  Gibeon,  and  made 
him  bring  at  least  a  supplementary  burnt-offering  and  peace- 
offering  before  the  ark  of  the  covenant. 

Finally,  we  must  attribute  to  the  second  redactor  a  portion 
of  the  Books  of  Kings  which  has  given  rise  to  much  dispute 
^nd  thought.  This  is  the  so-called  synchronisms,  i.e.,  the 
■dating  of  the  kings  of  Judah  according  to  the  regnal  years 
•of  the  kings  ol  Israel,  and  conversely.  The  lack  of  an  era 
was,  no  doubt,  supplied  in  this  way  :  but  the  result  shows 
how  difficult  it  was  to  carry  it  out.  From  the  death  of 
Solomon  to  the  destruction  of  Samaria  260  years  are  allotted 
to  the  kings  of  Judah;  to  the  kings  of  Israel  241  years, 
7  mouths,  7  days.  There  is,  therefore,  an  error  of  reckoning. 
We  come  to  the  same  result  by  comparing  the  astronomically 
certified  chronology  of  the  Assyrian  Cuneiform  Inscriptions. 
According  to  these  Ahab  of  Israel  took  part  in  the  Battle 
of  Karkar  (854  B.C.)  :  from  that  date  to  the  destruction 
of  Samaria  132  years  elapsed.  But  in  the  Books  of  Kings 
157  years,  7  u^iOnths,  are  assigned  to  the  kings  from  Ahab's 
son  Ahaziah  to  Hoshea.  When  we  add  that  the  numbers 
for  the  first  eight  kings  of  Israel,  leaving  out  Zimri,  are 
22,  2,  24  (probably  22  originally),  2,  12,  22,  2,  12,  the 
suspicion  ai-ises  that  12,  as  an  average  number,  has  been 
taken  for  the  foundation.  It  occurs  twice,  and  the  22  seems 
to  be  thrice  increased  to  2  x  12  by  the  addition  of  2. 
All  this  makes  it  impossible  to  deny  that  the  chronology, 
and  especially  the  synchronisms,  have  in  several  instances 
been    artificially    corrected.       This    was    necessitated,    partly 


74       §  4.  FROM    THE    DESTRUCTION    OF    SAMARIA  TO    THE    EXILE. 

by  tlie  lack  of  traditional  numbers  (especially  for  tlie  Israelite 
kings),  partly  by  the  corruption  or  the  contradictions  in  the 
actual  tradition.  And,  in  conclusion,  the  influence  has  been 
felt  of  a  system  which  is  both  late  and  artificial,  the  traces 
of  which  appear  at  1  Kings  vi.  1,  as  well  as  in  the  numbers 
of  the  kings.  According  to  1  Kings  vi.  1,  480  years  {i.e.^ 
12  generations  of  40  years  each)  elapsed  between  the  Exodus 
and  the  building  of  the  temple.  From  then  to  the  end  of 
Zedekiah  430  years  are  given  to  the  kings  of  Judah, 
50  to  the  Exile,  and  the  total  again  is  480  years.  It  may 
still  be  questioned  whether  the  second  redactor  himself  con- 
templated this  extension  of  the  system  of  12  years  each 
to  the  time  from  the  building  of  the  temple  to  the  re-founding 
of  the  commonwealth.  If  he  did  we  must  assign  his  activity 
to  the  post-exilic  age.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this 
system  affected  the  final  determination  of  the  numbers  of  the 
kings.  This  is  all  the  less  difficult  to  believe  since,  without 
it,  a  considerable  number  of  additions  (designated  Z  in  the 
Survey)  to  the  original  text  of  the  Book  of  Kings  must  be 
registered.  Nor  are  these  merely  such  as  the  second  redactor 
might  find  extant  and  receive  into  the  text,  but  others, 
indubitably  post-exilic,  which  show  themselves  to  be  later 
additions,  either  by  their  dependence  on  the  Priests'  Code 
in  the  Pentateuch  (thus  1  K.  viii.  4b),  or  by  their 
divergence  from  the  Deuteronomist's  own  utterances,  or, 
finally,  by  their  being  Midrashic  in  character  (1  K.  xii.. 
21ff.  and33ff.;  2  K.  i.  9ff.). 


4.  Habakkuk. — Jeremiah. 

It  was  a  prophet's  voice  which  sounded  in  the  ears  of  the 
deluded  multitude  from  all  the  ^Drophetic  histories  and  from 
the  whole  of  the  view  given  by  the  Book  of  Kings,  a  moving 
sermon  on  the  infinite  guilt  of  the  people  and  its  kings, 
on  the  long-suffering  of  God  which,  on  one  occasion,  by  the 
judgment  on    Israel,   had    shown  itself   exhausted.      But  no 


HABAKKUK.  75- 

prophetic  voices  could  any  longer  avert  that  increased  harden- 
ing, followed  by  judgment,  which  Isaiah  himself (vi.  9  if.)  had 
designated  as  the  true  result  of  the  preaching  of  repentance, 
willed  by  God  Himself.  Nor  did  tho8e  prophetic  voices 
accomplish  anything  different  which  we  have  now  to  think 
of  as  belonging  to  the  time  between  623  and  58G,  that  of 
Habakkuk,  and  that  of  one  of  the  greatest  of  all,  Jeremiah. 

Formerly  there  was  almost  complete  unanimity  respecting 
the  interpretation  and  position  of  Habakkuk's  prophecy.^ 
The  allusion  to  the  terrible  power  and  the  mighty  deeds  of  the 
Chaldieaiis  (i.  6)  seemed  to  admit  of  no  other  date  than  after 
the  battle  of  Carchemish,  through  which  Nebuchadnezzar  may 
be  said  to  have  entered  on  the  rule  over  all  Hither  Asia,, 
that  is  about  604.  For  chaps,  i.-ii.  8  this  view  was  still  held 
^vhen  Stade  (Zeitschrift  fiir  die  Alttest.  Wissenschaft,  1884, 
p.  154)  assigned  ii.  9-20  to  a  post-exilic  reviser,  and  also 
explained  chap,  iii.,  the  so-called  Psalm  of  Habakkuk,  as 
a  post-exilic  congregational  hymn.  The  second  of  these  ideas 
met  with  almost  universal  assent  (especially  because  the 
musical  marks  in  the  title  and  subscription  point  to  its  having 
been  subsequently  appropriated  from  a  collection  of  songs)  : 
but  Budde  (see  below)  claims  respecting  ii.  9  ff.  that  at  least 
vv.  9-12  and  15-17  belong  to  the  original  oracle.  And 
since  Giesebrecht  (^^Beitrage  zur  Jesaiakritik,'^  Gott.,  1890,. 
p.  197f.)  and,  independently  of  him,  Budde  and  Rothsteiu,. 
have  proved  that  i.  5-11  breaks  the  connection  between 
V.  4  and  12,  other  hypotheses  have  been  built  on  this, 
which  also  seem  w^orth  mentioning.  Giesebrecht  himself  was 
of  opinion  that  the  prediction,  i.  5-11  (an  oracle  complete 
in  itself,  the  first  announcement  of  the  Chalda^ans)  should 
be  placed  before  v.  1,  and  that  the  rest  formed  an  inde- 
pendent piece,  composed  under  the  stress  of  the  Chaldieau 
rule,  probably  in  the  Exile.  Budde,  on  the  contrary  (Theolog. 
Studien  und  Kritiken,  1893,  p.  383  ff.),  saw  in  the  oppressor 
of  the  pious,  not  the  Chaldsean,  but  the  Assyrian,  who  was- 
threatened  with  destruction  by  the  rising  might  of  the 
Chaldseans.      The  original  position    of    the   threat    (i.    5-11) 


7G  §  4.  FROM  THE    DESTRUCTION    OF    SAMARIA    TO    THE    EXILE. 

would  be  after  ii.  4  :  tlie  whole  oracle,  apart  from  the  later 
additions,  ii.  13  f.  and  18-20,  would  belong  to  about  615. 
Eothsteiu,  finally  (Tlieol.  Stud,  und  Krit.,  1891,  p.  51  fF.), 
■comes  to  the  conclusion  that  Habakkuk's  original  oracle 
(about  605)  was  chiefly  directed  against  the  prevailing  ungodli- 
ness and  violence  in  the  midst  of  Judah  which  Jehoiakim's 
rule  had  furthered,  aud  announced  the  punishment  of  the 
apostate  land  and  people  which  should  be  accomplished  by 
the  Chaldasans.  This  oracle  (the  original  order  of  which  was 
i.  2-4,  12a,  13,  ii.  l-5a,  i.  6-10,  14,  15a)  would  then  be  so  revised 
and  expanded  by  a  later  writer  (in  the  Exile)  that,  at  least 
in  its  greater  part,  it  became  an  oracle  against  Babylon. 
Apposite  reasons  have  been  advanced  for  both  the  last-uamed 
hypotheses.  On  the  other  hand  they  both  lie  open  to  the 
objection  that  they  displace  at  least  five  verses  within  the 
original  oracle.     Hence  it  is  difficult  to  decide. 

The  mention  of  Habakkuk  has  brought  us  at  any  rate  far 
beyond  the  beginning  of  Jeremiah's  activity.  But  it  is  with 
good  reason  that  we  now  for  the  first  time  mention  him  as  the 
great  witness  to  the  righteousness  and  unapproachable  holiness 
of  his  God  at  the  close  of  the  pre-exilic  age.  On  him  had 
fallen  the  unspeakably  heavy  lot  to  be  obliged  to  behold,  whole 
decades  long,  the  death-struggles  of  his  fatherland,  assured 
that  even  the  intercession  of  a  Moses  and  a  Samuel  could  no 
longer  save  it.  Isaiah  and  Micah  had  descried  the  destruction 
of  Judah  a  considerable  distance  off :  Jeremiah  personally 
experienced  it,  with  all  its  horrors.  His  language  accordingly, 
from  beginning  to  end,  is  full  of  reproaches,  threats,  care  and 
woe.  Yirmejahu  {i.e.^  according  to  the  usual  interpretation, 
'^Jahweh  establishes '■')  was  descended,  according  to  i.  1  (cf. 
also  xxxii.  6  ff.)  from  Hilkiah,  one  of  the  priests  who  lived  at 
Anathoth  in  Benjamin  (now  'J.?i^7^a,  an  hour  N.E.  of  Jerusalem). 
Called  to  be  a  prophet  whilst  still  a  young  man  (i.  6),  in  the 
thirteenth  year  of  Josiah  (628  B.C.),  he  afterwards  laboured 
constantly  at  Jerusalem  (ii.  1,  vii.  2,  &c.).  Chap.  iii.  6  ff.  is 
the  only  oracle  dated  in  Josiah's  time :  yet  Jeremiah  him- 
self says  (xxv.  3)   that   he   spoke  unweariedly  to   the  people 


JEREMIAH. 


for  twenty-tliree  years,  from  the  thirteen tli  year  of  Josiah.  At 
least  chaps,  ii.-vi.  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  an  echo  of 
speeches  belonging  to  Josiah^s  time.  We  read  a  eulogistic 
judgment  on  Josiah  by  the  prophet  at  xxii.  15 ;  according 
to  2  Chron.  xxxv.  25  he  also  composed  a  dirge  over  the  greatly 
lamented  king  after  the  battle  of  Megiddo.  Chap.  xxii.  10  ff. 
is  the  only  utterance  which  deals  with  Jehoahaz  (under  the 
name  Shallum). 

The  state  of  the  commonwealth,  and  with  it  that  of  the 
prophet,  waxed  ever  gloomier  under  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim^ 
the  unworthy  eldest  son  of  the  noble  Josiah  (xxii.  13  ff.). 
Probably  in  the  beginning  of  this  reign  the  symbolic  action 
with  the  linen  girdle  (xiii.  1  ff.)  was  performed,  certainly 
another  was,  the  breaking  of  an  earthen  pitcher  in  the  valley 
of  Hinnom,  and  the  threatenings  connected  therewith  (xix.  1  ff .) , 
The  sequel  of  the  repetition  of  this  in  the  forecourt  of  the 
temple  is  that  Pashur,  chief  overseer  of  the  temple,  smites 
Jeremiah  and  puts  him  in  the  stocks  for  a  night  (xx.  1  fp.). 
For  this  the  prophet  predicts  to  him  that  he  shall  go  through 
all  the  horrors  of  the  taking  of  Jerusalem,  and  afterwards, 
together  with  his  family,  die  in  Babylon.  No  doubt  it  was 
during  that  night  of  imprisonment  that  the  two  striking 
passages,  xx.  7  ff.  and  14  ff.,  originated  ;  the  first  of  which  is- 
almost  an  indictment  of  Jahweh,  who  had  deceived  him  and 
given  him  up  to  be  a  common  laughing-stock.  This  is  an 
outburst  of  despair,  from  which  the  prophet  struggles  back 
to  renewed  trust,  yea  even  to  praising  God.  The  other  is 
a  cursing  of  the  day  of  his  birth,  and  of  the  man  who  brought 
tidings  of  it  to  his  father. 

Chap,  xxvi.,  which  also  belongs  to  the  beginning  of 
Jehoiakim^s  reign,  records  an  almost  greater  danger  to 
Jeremiah  than  that  of  chap.  xx.  Embittered  by  the  threats 
which  he  has  uttered  against  the  temple  and  the  common- 
wealth in  the  forecourt  of  the  temple,  which  was  filled  with 
visitors  to  the  feast,  the  priests  and  prophets  seize  him,  crying, 
''  Thou  must  die  !  ''  The  chiefs  of  Judah,  whom  we  elsewhere 
see  favourably  disposed  to  him,  when  they  hear  this,  hasten 


78       §    4.    FROM    THE    DESTRUCTION    OP    SAMARIA    TO    THE    EXILE. 

to  tlie  rescue  and  institute  a  regular  trial.  Then  Jeremiali 
shows  himself  in  all  his  greatness.  In  answer  to  the  accusa- 
tions of  the  priests  and  prophets  he  appeals  stedfastly  to 
Jahweh's  commands,  who  bade  him  prophesy  thus :  Oh,  that 
they  therefore  would  not  let  the  call  to  repentance  sound 
unheard  !  But  as  to  himself  he  is  in  their  power,  and  whatever 
they  please  may  happen  to  him  :  only  let  them  remember  the 
guilt  which  his  death  will  bring  on  them. 

Such  words  and  such  dignity  conquer  the  people.  Along 
with  the  chiefs  they  take  the  prophet's  side.  A  few  of  the 
leading  men  also  remember  what  happened  in  Hezekiah's  reign, 
Micah's  menacing  prophecy,  which  did  not  bring  about  the 
death  of  the  prophet  but  the  repentance  of  the  people. 
Jeremiah  thus  escaped  the  threatened  death,  chiefly  through 
the  protection  of  Ahikam,  son  of  Shaphan. 

After  the  battle  of  Carchemish  (605)  Jeremiah  indefatigably 
IDroclaims  that  the  judgment  on  Judah  will  come  through  the 
Chaldseans.  The  land  must  become  desolate,  the  people  an 
object  of  astonishment  and  scorn,  and  must  serve  the  king  of 
Babylon  seventy  years,  till  God's  judgment  come  upon  him 
also  and  his  land  in  turn  become  desolate  (chap,  xxv.) . 

In  the  same  year,  605,  Jeremiah's  oracles  were  first  written 
-out.  The  fate  of  the  roll  Avhich  Baruch  wrote  at  Jeremiah's 
dictation  is  vividly  and  impressively  depicted  in  chap,  xxxvi. 
The  only  result  of  Jehoiakim's  destruction  of  the  roll  \vas  that 
Jeremiah  caused  Baruch  to  prepare  another,  and  added  to  the 
contents  of  the  first  many  sayings  of  like  import. 

Jehoiakim's  revolt  in  the  year  602  could  not  be  immediately 
punished  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  And  it  is  questionable  whether 
Jehoiakim  lived  to  see  the  beginning  of  the  siege  of  Jerusalem. 
A  shameful  death  is  indeed  foretold  him,  Jer.  xxii.  18  ft'.  and 
xxxvi.  oO,  and  this  could  not  have  come  about  earlier  than  in 
a  sally  against  the  Chaldasans.  The  siege  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  vigorously  prosecuted  till  Nebuchadnezzar  himself 
interposed.  It  was  brought  to  a  close  by  Jehoiachin's  volun- 
tary submission,  which  was  probably  made  by  Jeremiah's 
advice^  certainly  in  harmony  ^vith  his  views  (cf.  xxii.  20  ff.). 


JEREMIAH.  79 

The  vision  of  tlie  good  and  bad  figs  (cliap.  xxiv.)  in  the 
beginning  of  Zedekiah^s  reign  enables  us  to  see  what  Jeremiah 
thought  of  the  situation,  viz.,  that  this  first  deportation  was 
the  seal  put  on  the  destruction  of  the  people.  He  expects 
that  the  deported  will  obtain  by  their  repentance  grace  and 
restoration  :  for  the  remainder  in  Judea  and  Egyj^t  all  the 
earlier  threatenings  remain  in  force. 

In  the  fourth  year  of  Zedekiah  [i.e.,  594)  the  ambassadors 
of  the  surrounding  smaller  nations  were  gathered  together  at 
Jerusalem,  evidently  for  the  purpose  of  conspiring  against 
the  Chaldeans.  Jeremiah  was  then  directed  by  Jaliweh 
(chap,  xxvii.)  to  put  bands  and  yokes  on  his  neck,  and  send 
a  message  to  the  kings  of  those  nations  that  the  only  way  of 
•escaping  utter  destruction  was  by  willingly  submitting  to  the 
Chalda^ans.  Jeremiah  gave  the  same  directions  to  Zedekiah, 
the  priests,  and  all  the  people,  accompanying  it  with  impres- 
sive warnings  against  the  false  prophets  who  flattered  their 
foolish  hopes  and  promised  the  speedy  restoration  of  the  holy 
vessels  which  had  been  carried  off,  whereas  in  truth  the 
remainder,  hitherto  spared,  would  have  to  go  to  Babylon. 
Shortly  afterwards  (xxviii.  1  if.)  Hanauiah,  a  prophet  of 
Oibeon,  prophesied  anew  in  the  temple  that  within  two  years 
Jehoiachin  and  the  vessels  of  the  temple  would  return. 
Although  Jeremiah  felt  some  suspicion  he  supported  this  with 
an  "  Amen,^'  and  even  suffered  Hananiah  to  take  the  yoke  off 
his  neck  and  break  it  in  pieces  as  a  sign  that  before  the  lapse 
of  two  years  Nebuchadnezzar^s  yoke  on  the  neck  of  the  nations 
should  be  bi'oken  in  pieces.  But  Jeremiah  had  scarcely  turned 
his  back  ere  the  word  of  Jahweh  came  to  him  :  in  place  of  the 
broken  wooden  yoke  an  iron  one  shall  be  imposed,  and 
Hananiah,  as  a  false  prophet,  is  to  die  in  the  same  year.  And 
Hananiah  died  in  the  same  year,  in  the  seventh  month. 

Jeremiah  also  utters  his  warning  against  false  prophets  in 
a  letter  to  the  exiles  in  Babylon  at  about  the  same  time  (xxix. 
1  ff.).  On  this  account  he  is  accused  before  the  priests  in 
Jerusalem  by  the  prophet  Shemaiah,  but  replies  only  by  a 
minatory  prediction  against  Shemaiah. 


80  §    4.    FROM    THE  DESTRUCTION    OP    SAMARIA  TO    THE  EXILE. 

The  advance  of  the  Chaldoeans  about  588  causes  Zedekiah 
(xxi.  1  ff.)  to  send  two  messengers  to  ask  for  an  oracle  from 
Jeremiah.  They  receive  a  most  unfavourable  answer.  But 
the  prophet  counsels  the  people  to  flee  to  the  Chaldaeans  :  for 
none  but  the  fugitives  shall  save  their  life.  And  when,  in 
the  second  year  of  the  siege,  a  gleam  of  hope  appears  through 
Nebuchadnezzar's  raising  the  siege  because  of  the  advance  of 
Pharaoh  Hophra,  Jeremiah  still  adhered  immovably  to  his 
declaration.  To  Zedekiah's  messengers,  sent  to  solicit  his- 
intercession,  he  declares  that  the  Chaldgeans  will  return,  take 
the  city,  and  burn  it.  Yea,  if  the  whole  army  of  the  Chaldagans 
were  beaten,  so  that  only  a  few  wounded  survived,  these  would 
rise  up  in  their  tent  and  burn  the  city. 

Shortly  afterwards  (xxxvii.  11  ff*.)  Jeremiah  was  seized  by 
a  warder  as  he  was  going  out  of  the  city,  and,  in  spite  of  his 
denial,  brought  to  the  princes  as  a  deserter.  They  had  him 
scourged  and  put  him  in  prison  in  the  house  of  Jonathan  the 
scribe,  in  a  subterranean  vault.  It  was  not  till  some  time 
after,  when  the  siege  had  been  resumed,  that  Zedekiah  had 
him  secretly  brought  to  the  palace  to  hear  a  word  of  Jahweh 
from  him.  The  answer  sounds  as  ever:  Thou  wilt  be  delivered 
into  the  power  of  the  King  of  Babylon.  But  Jeremiah  wants 
to  know  from  the  king  how  he  has  merited  imprisonment^ 
and  finally  entreats  that  at  least  he  will  not  have  him  taken 
back  to  prison  in  the  house  of  Jonathan.  Zedekiah  has  him 
kept  thenceforward  in  the  court  of  the  guard,  and  a  loaf  of 
bread  given  to  him  daily  until  all  the  bread  in  the  city  was 
consumed.  But  during  his  stay  in  the  court  of  the  guards 
Jeremiah  is  taught  by  a  remarkable  event  (chap,  xxxii.)  that 
behind  all  these  afflictions  which  await  the  state  and  the 
people,  the  comfortable  hope  of  the  return  of  the  banished 
and  the  restoration  of  the  state  holds  good — a  promise  which 
is  further  developed  in  the  sayings  that  follow  in  chap,  xxxiii. 

Chap,  xxxviii.  brings  us  into  the  last  days  of  the  siege. 
Even  in  the  court  of  the  guard  Jeremiah  is  not  weary  of 
repeating  his  prediction  of  disaster.  The  princes  at  last 
become  tired  of  this,  and  demand  of  the   king  that   he   shall 


JEREMIAH.  81 

die,  because  lie  only  makes  tlie  people  despondent.  Zedekiali 
faint-heartedly  gives  Jeremiah  np  to  them.  But  even  then 
they  have  not  the  courage  to  outrage  his  hallowed  person. 
To  make  him  at  all  events  innocuous,  however,  they  let  him 
down  by  cords  into  a  cistern  in  the  court  of  the  guard  which 
was  so  full  of  mud  that  the  prophet  sank  in  it.  It  is  a 
testimony  of  the  strongest  kind  to  the  righteousness  of  the 
Divine  judgment  on  Judali  that  in  this  hour  no  one  took  pity 
on  the  martyr  save  a  stranger,  Ebed-Melech,  the  Ethiopian, 
one  of  the  king's  chamberlains.  He  obtained  from  Zedekiali 
Jeremiah's  deliverance :  for  this  the  prophet  promised  him 
{xxxix.  15  ff.)  escape  from  the  sword  of  the  Chalda^ans. 

But  the  same  Zedekiah  who  had  so  readily  abandoned  him 
lias  him  secretly  fetched  once  more  (xxxviii.  14  ff.)  to  inquire 
of  him,  and  swears  that  in  any  case  he  shall  be  safe.  Again 
he  receives  nothing  but  the  counsel  to  save  his  life  and  the 
existence  of  the  city  by  voluntary  submission.  Zedekiah, 
however,  is  incapable  of  any  manly  resolution.  He  is  afraid 
of  being  given  up  to  the  Judahite  deserters  in  the  Chaldsean 
camp.  All  Jeremiah's  exhortations  effect  nothing.  Instead 
•of  replying,  Zedekiah  merely  enjoins  strict  silence  as  to  their 
-conversation,  and  in  case  of  the  princes  asking  about  it, 
suggests  an  evasion.  Jeremiah  obeys,  and  the  affair  is  thus 
>kept  secret. 

We  have  a  twofold  account  of  what  befel  the  prophet  after 
-the  taking  of  the  city :  the  one  (much  interrupted  by  later 
interpolations)  in  xxxviii.  28b,  xxxix.  3  and  14;  the  other  in 
-chap.  xl.  1  if.  The  two  can  be  so  combined  as  to  bring  out 
the  fact,  that  after  the  city  Avas  taken,  Jeremiah  was  saved  by 
the  Chaldiean  officers  (perhaps  on  the  intercession  of  Gedaliah; 
■according  to  xxxix.  11  f.  by  Nebuchadnezzar's  order),  but 
afterwards  was  carried  to  Ramah  with  the  other  prisoners. 
It  was  here  that  Nebuzar-Adan,  who  had  been  occupied 
meanwhile  with  the  destruction  of  the  city,  discovered  him, 
and  gave  him  the  choice  whether  he  would  go  under  his 
protection  to  Babylon,  or  betake  himself  to  Gedaliah  at  Mizpah. 

G 


82  §  4.    FKOM    THE    DESTEUCTIOX    OF    SAMAEIA.    TO    THE    EXILE. 

Jeremiali  cLooses  tlie  latter,  and  ISTebuzar-Adan  dismisses  liim 
witli  a  present. 

After  the  murder  of  Gedaliah  and  all  the  sad  events 
narrated  in  chaps,  xl.  7 — xli.  18,  Jeremiah  and  Baruch  fled  with 
the  remainder  of  the  people  from  Mizpah  to  the  South. 
During  a  rest  near  Bethlehem  the  people  desire  (xlii.  1  ff .)  that 
Jeremiah  will  intercede  with  Jahweh  for  them,  and  inquire  of 
Him.  The  prophet  promises  to  keep  back  nothing  of  God^s 
answer  from  them,  and  they  bind  themselves  by  an  oath  to 
obey  the  Divine  word.  After  ten  days  the  word  of  Jahweh 
comes  to  the  prophet ;  tlie  only  way  of  saving  their  life  would 
be  by  remaining  in  the  land,  not  by  their  proposed  flight  to 
Egypt.  But  the  prophet  had  hardly  made  this  word  known 
when  insolent  voices  are  raised;  '^'that  is  a  falsehood  and  not 
God's  command,  Baruch  has  set  the  prophet  on,  that  they  may 
all  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  Chalda3ans.''  In  short,  they  do  not 
obey,  but  set  off,  and  compel  Jeremiah  and  Baruch  to 
accompany  them  to  Egypt.  They  settle  at  Tahpanhes,  i.e., 
according  to  the  Greek  Bible,  Daphne,  near  Pelusiuni,  close 
to  the  border.  The  prophet  is  here  directed  (xliii.  8  fi".)  to 
foretell  to  his  countrymen,  by  a  symbolic  action  and  its  inter 
pretation,  the  devastation  of  Egypt  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 
This  prediction  was  first  f alfiUed  in  525  by  Cambyses. 

The   last    trace    of    Jeremiah's    activity   lies    before    us    in 

chap.  xliv.  in  the  reprimand  of  the  Egj^ptian  Jews  because  of 

their  idolatry,  practised  especially  by  the   women,  according 

to  V.  15,  and,  according  to  v.  17  and  25,  vowed   even  before 

the  immigration.     Seeing  that  all  the  misery  of  the  people 

has  not  served  for  a  warning  to  them  the  last  remnant  must 

also  perish.      The  people  answer  impudently  that  things  are 

just  the  reverse.     So  long  as   they  offered  to  the  Queen  of 

Heaven  they  had  had  bread   enough  and   saw  no  evil.     But 

since  their  off'erings  ceased  (^.e.,. since  the  purification  of  the 

cultus    by   Josiah)    they   have   lacked    all    things    and    been 

consumed  by  the  sword  and  famine. 

Jeremiah's  reply  is  for  us  the  swan-song  of  the  prophet. 


JEREMIAH.  83 

Once  more  be  bears  testimony  against  the  despisers  of  God. 
Let  them  keep  their  wicked  vow,  but  no  one  shall  again  take 
the  name  of  Jahweh  in  his  mouth.  Only  a  scanty  remnant 
shall  one  da}'  retnrn  to  Judah  whilst  the  rest  perish  in  Egypt. 
Then  will  it  appear  whose  word  is  true,  his  or  theirs. 

An  approximate  calculation  of  Jeremiads  age  shows  that 
he  cannot  have  long  survived  this  event.  If  he  was  about 
thirty  years  old  in  628,  when  he  was  called,  he  must  have 
been  at  least  seventy  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  And 
what  anxiety,  privation  and  ill-treatment  he  endured  in  these 
closing'  years  !  According  to  a  Jewish  tradition  he  was  finally 
carried  to  Babylon.  The  other  tradition  is  much  more 
probable  which  says  that  he  was  stoned  by  his  own  people  at 
Tahpanhes.  In  2  Mace.  ii.  Iff.,  xv.  14  ff.,  and  again  in 
Matt.  xvi.  14,  we  have  eloquent  testimony  to  the  vividness 
with  which  the  people's  memory  occupied  itself  with  the 
fig-ure  of  the  great  sufferer.  There  are  diverse  reasons  which 
explain  wdiy  he  was  the  prophet  whose  significance  was 
estimated  more  and  more  highly  as  time  went  on.  Not  least 
of  these  is  the  fact  that  no  other  prophet  is  personally  so  near 
to  us,  so  humanly  comprehensible.  True  we  meet  with  slight 
traces  in  Hosea  also  of  the  gulf  between  wdiat  he  might  hope 
and  wish  for  as  a  mere  man,  and  what  the  Spirit  of  God 
compelled  liim  to  expect  and  threaten.  But  in  Jeremiah  this 
gulf  runs  in  striking  fashion  through  almost  his  entire  activity. 
Not  as  though  the  prophet  were  ever  unfaithful  to  the  Divine 
command  (i.  18)  to  show  himself  "  a  defenced  city,  and  an 
iron  pillar,  and  brazen  walls,  against  the  whole  land,  against 
the  kings  of  Judah,  its  princes  and  priests. '^  But  what 
a  glimj)se  we  there  get  into  his  own  distressful  heart,  which 
almost  gives  way  under  the  holy  wrath  he  feels  at  his  ^^eople's 
sins,  and  at  the  same  time  under  the  deepest  pain  at  his 
people's  destruction  !  This  incessant  struggle  between  the 
divided  forces  within  him  imprints  itself  to  a  certain  extent  on 
his  speech.  Although  it  is  very  unlike  the  mighty  waves  of 
Isaiah's  language  it  also  is  able  in  a  peculiar  manner  to  seize 
and  touch   the  heart  by  its  elegiac  tone.     Jeremiah  has  with 

0  -^ 


84        §  4.    FROM    THE    DESTRUCTION    OF    SAMA.RIA    TO    THE    EXILE. 

reason  been  called  '^  the  first  poet  of  feeling  amongst  tlie 
prophets/' 

The  origin  of  our  present  Book  of  Jeremiah  can  be  traced 
in  the  main  to  five  stages  of  redaction :  the  book  itself 
testifies  to  the  four  first. 

According  to  xxxvi.  2,  Jeremiah  commenced  his  literary 
activity  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jchoiakim,  when  he  dictated 
to  Baruch  all  the  oracles  of  the  years  628-60G.  This  roll  is 
read  to  the  people  by  Baruch,  and  burnt  piecemeal  in  the 
brazier  by  Jehoiakim.  We  can  only  surmise  how  much  it 
embraced  of  the  present  contents  of  the  Book  of  Jeremiah. 
Besides  an  account  of  the  prophet's  calling,  the  greater 
part  of  chaps,  ii.-xx.,  xxi.  11 — xxii.  19,  xxv.  1-14  probably 
belonged  to  it.  From  the  phraseology  of  xxxvi.  2,  it  is  clear 
that  oracles  against  external  nations  were  also  attached  to  it. 
And  this  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  oracles  against 
foreign  nations  which  are  to  be  read  in  the  Hebrew  Jeremiah 
in  chaps,  xlvi.-xlix.  are  arranged  in  the  Greek  Bible  next 
after  xxv.  13,  the  only  indication  in  the  Hebrew  text  of  their 
original  position  being  xxv.  15-38.  Still  it  must  remain  an 
open  question  how  much  of  the  present  contents  of  xlvi-xlix. 
can  have  belonged  to  Jeremiah's  first  collection.  According 
to  xxxvi.  32,  when  the  roll  burnt  by  Jehoiakim  was  repro- 
duced, ^'  many  like  words ''  were  added  (amongst  them 
probably  the  saying  to  Baruch,  chap.  xlv.).  Hence  this 
is  to  be  regarded  as  a  second  stage  in  tbe  redaction  of  the 
book.  A  third  stage  is  evidenced  by  the  present  prologue 
to  the  whole  (i.  1-3).  It  dates  the  ensuing  collection  from 
the  days  of  Josiah  and  Jehoiakim  (thus  far  the  title  of  the 
first  and  second  roll  perhaps  extended),  but  then  comes  down 
to  the  fifth  month  of  the  eleventh  year  of  Zedekiah.  The 
redaction  of  this  collection  therefore  falls  in  the  time  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  :  it  cannot  be  determined 
whether  Jeremiah  completed  it  during  his  two  months'  stay 
with  Gedaliah,  or  afterwards  in  Egypt.  But  since  it  says 
nothing  about  the  oracles  in  chaps,  xlii.-xliv.,  or  the  events 
after    the     fifth     month^     it    is    easily    to     be    distinguished 


JEREMIAH.  85 

from  tlic  fonrtli  step  of  the  redaction,  wliicli  added  cliaps. 
xl.-xliv.  and  various  other  accounts  of  events  in  Jeremiah's 
life.  This  redaction  possibly  belongs  to  the  first  half  of  the 
Exile,  and  may  have  come  from  Baruch's  hand  (but  cf.  the 
note).  In  any  case  these  narratives  are  founded  almost 
everywhere  on  excellent  information  which  could  only  have 
been  obtained  from  records  made  by  Jeremiah  or  Barucli 
themselves,  or  from  the  statements  of  eye-witnesses.*  We 
are  finally  led  to  a  fifth  and  last  stage  by  the  manifold 
additions  (designated  Z  in  the  Survey),  parts  of  which  can 
only  have  originated  in  post-exilic  times.  The  interpolations 
in  chap,  xxxix.,  arising  from  a  mistaken  idea  of  the  context, 
certainly  belong  to  this  class  (v.  1-2  came  almost  verbally 
from  2  Kings  xxv.  1-4  [Jer.  lii.  4-7]  ;  v.  4-13  from  2  Kings 
XXV.  4-12  [Jer.  lii.  7-lG]),  as  also  chap  lii.  (from  2  Kings 
xxiv.  18 — xxv.  21),  and  the  oracle  against  Babylon  in  chap, 
l.-li.  58.  The  latter  was  composed  in  Judea  about  400,  and 
founded  on  the  older  oracles  against  Babylon  (Isaiah  xiii.  f ., 
xxi.,  xxxiv.  f.,  &c.),  which  in  many  points  it  reproduces 
almost  verbally. t 

*  In  the  Chronological  Table,  the  chapters  in  question,  belonging  to  G08,  are 
enclosed  in  square  brackets.  The  reasons  for  this  belief  in  an  exilic  stage  of 
the  redaction  are  set  forth  in  a  peculiarly  convincing  manner  by  Kuenen  (in  the 
second  edition  of  his  "  historisch-kritischen  Untersuchung  der  Biicher  des 
alten  Bunds,"  ii.  255  ff.).  It  would  be  especially  difficult  to  understand  the 
very  surprising  arrangement  of  many  of  the  oracles,  and  the  use  of  the  name 
Nebuchadnezzar  (instead  of  the  correct  form  Nebuchadrezzar  which  Jeremiah 
himself  used)  on  the  assumption  that  it  was  due  to  Jeremiah,  or,  indeed,  to 
Baruch.  According  to  Kuenen,  chaps,  xviii.-xx.,  xxvi.-xxix.  and  xxxiv. -xliv. 
are  also  to  be  ascribed  to  this  redactor.  Stade,  too  (ZAW,  1892,  p.  276  ff.), 
believes  that  this  redactor's  activity  was  far-reaching,  and  shows  his  secondary 
character  in  chaps,  xxi.  and  xxiv.  f.  which  he  derives  (together  with  xxvi.  and 
xxviii.  f.)  from  a  book  containing  narratives  about  Jeremiah.  Giesebrecht 
("  Kommentar  iiber  das  Buch  Jeremia,"  Gottingen,  1894),  in  a  very  instructive 
way,  has  recently  distributed  the  material  under  the  three  categories, 
"  Jeremiah,  Baruch,  Reviser." 

f  Cf.  the  more  detailed  demonstration  of  the  composition  of  this  oracle 
(published,  doubtless,  in  Jeremiah's  name,  and  therefore  inserted,  probably  on 
purpose,  before  the  genuine  passage,  li.  59  If.)  by  Budde,  in  the  "  Jahrbiicher 
fiir  deutsche  Theologie,"  Vol.  23,  p.  428  ff . 


§  5.  THE  PEEIOD  OF  THE  EXILE. 

1.    EZEKIEL. 

The  period  of  the  Exile — apart  from  Ezekiel,  Lamentations, 
and  a  number  of  elegiac  psalms — was  formerly  considered 
a  time  of  deatlily  sleep  as  regards  literature.  But  in  reality 
a  great  literary  movement  went  on  at  this  very  time,  an 
obvious  eagerness  to  arrange  the  inheritance  of  the  pre-exilic 
past,  to  revise  it  from  a  definite  view-point  and  to  unite  into 
a  great  whole  the  related  parts.  Along  with  this  there  were 
not  lacking  fundamental  new  creations,  and  this  in  two 
apparently  quite  diverse  realms,  that  of  legislation  and  that 
of  prophec}^  Indeed  in  Ezekiel,  the  connecting  link  between 
the  pre-exilic  and  the  exilic  time,  we  have  the  noteworthy 
phenomenon  of  a  prophetism  which  comes  forward  to  legislate 
and  thus  becomes  of  immeasurable  significance  for  the 
re-founding  of  the  Jewish  state  as  a  "  theocracy.'^  Jechazeqtl, 
i.e.,  God  strengthens,  son  of  Buzi,  and  a  member  of  the 
priestly  order,  had  been  carried  captive  with  Jehoiachiu  in 
597.  According  to  i.  2,"^  he  was  called  to  be  a  prophet  in  the 
fifth  year  after  the  captivity  of  Jehoiachiu,  i.e.,  593  B.C. 
Ezekiel  was  then  amongst  the  exiles  at  Tel  Abib  (iii.  15),  by 
the  river  Chebar,  in  the  land  of  the  Chalda3ans  (i.  3),  and 
thus,  without  doubt,  in  Babylonia  proper.  According  to 
iii.  24,  viii.  1,  he  dwelt  there  in  his  own  house.  Chap.  xxiv. 
15  fF.  shows  that  he  was  married  :  in  the  ninth  year  after  his 
captivity  his  wife,  '^  the  desire  of  his  eyes,'^  was  taken  from 
him  by  disease.     It  is  usually  concluded  from  viii.  1,  xiv.  1, 


*  The  date  which  precedes  this  in  i.  1,  *'  in  the  thirtieth  year,"  is  usually 
traced  to  some  Babylonian  era,  such  as  that  of  Nabopolassar  as  king  of 
Babylon  (625).  But  the  original  position  of  the  verse  was  probably  at  the 
beginning  of  an  oracle,  now  lost,  belonging  to  the  thirtieth  year  after 
Jehoiachin's  captivity.     Otherwise  it  is  altogether  incomprehensible. 


EZEKIEL. 


87 


where  tlie  elders  of  tlie  people  sit  before  liim,  that  he  was 
held  ill  special  honour  by  the  exiles.  But  the  words  simply 
mean  that  they  wished  to  inquire  of  him  as  a  prophet  (so 
expressly  at  xx.  1),  as  members  of  the  nation  elsewhere 
inquire  of  him  (xxiv.  10^  xxxvii.  18).  xi.  25,  tells  of  his 
appearance  in  a  larger  circle. 

Ezekiel's  ao-e  at  the  time  he  was  called  is  nowhere  indicated. 
But  his  evidently  very  exact  knowledge  of  the  temple  allows 
us  to  conjecture  that  he  did  not  leave  Jerusalem  as  a  mere 
youth,  but  had  probably  officiated  there  as  priest.  The 
latest  date  in  his  book  (xxix.  17)  is  the  twenth-seventh  year 
[after  the  Captivity],  i.e.,  571.  Hence  his  prophetic  activity 
lasted  twenty-two  years.  In  spite  of  the  favourable  judgment 
which  Jer.  xxiv.  pronounces  on  the  exiles  compared  with 
those  who  had  remamed  behind,  Ezekiel  (xiv.  3  if.,  &c.)  has 
grave  complaints  to  make  against  his  comrades  in  suffering, 
even  as  he  had  been  forewarned  that  bitter  experiences 
awaited  him  when  he  was  called  (ii.  6  ff.,  iii.  8ff.).  At  xxxiii. 
30  fF.,  he  draws  a  striking  picture  of  the  way  in  which  they 
received  his  word  "  as  a  very  lovely  song  of  one  that  hath 
a  pleasant  voicej  and  plays  well  on  an  instrument,^'  and  then 
did  not  act  accordingly. 

The  outline  of  the  Booh  of  Ezeldel  is  exceedingly  clear ;  the 
fact  that  the  prophet  speaks  throughout  in  the  first  person 
is  an  additional  evidence  of  its  homogeneousness.  The  first 
main  group  (chaps,  i.-xxiv.)  contains  visions,  discourses  and 
symbolic  acts  belonging  to  the  time  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  and  (according  to  the  dates  given  in  chaps,  i.,  viii., 
XX.,  xxiv.)  arranged  chronologically  in  the  fifth,  sixth, 
seventh  and  ninth  years  after  the  Captivity.  In  the  second 
(chaps,  xxv.-xxxii.)  main  group  (most  of)  the  oracles  against 
external  nations  are  brought  together  in  geographical  order, 
except  that  the  larger  cycle  of  predictions  against  Egypt 
is  moved  to  the  end.  The  following  oracles  are  dated  : — 
xxix.  1  in  the  tenth  year;  xxvi.  1,  xxx.  20,  xxxi.  1,  in  the 
eleventh  year;  xxxii.  1  and  17,  in  the  twelfth  year  of 
the  Captivity.      The   date    at   xxix.  17   introduces  a  sort  of 


38  §  5.    THE    PERIOD    OP    THE    EXILE. 

coiTection  of  tlie  oracle  against  Tjre  (cliap.  xxvii.).  It  is 
evident  tliat  this  appendix  was  added  to  the  already  finished 
book_,  because  the  threatening  against  Tyre  remains  unaltered. 
The  third  group  (chaps,  xxxiii.-xxxix.)  consists  chiefly  of 
discourses  concerning  the  future,  amongst  which  are  the 
magnificent  prediction  of  the  quickening  of  the  dead  bones 
(i.e. J  the  people  buried  in  the  Exile)  in  chap,  xxxvii.,  and  the 
prediction  of  the  final  assault  of  the  heathen  powers,  Gog- 
and  his  allies,  on  the  restored  divine  commonwealth  (chap, 
xxxviii.  f.).  The  only  one  of  these  oracles  that  is  dated  is 
chap,  xxxiii.  21,  in  the  twelfth^  year.  As  a  fourth  main  group, 
belonging  to  the  twenty-fifth  year  after  the  Captivity,  there 
follows  finally  chaps,  xl.-xlviii.,  the  great  vision  of  the  re- 
constitution  of  the  divine  commonwealth,  especially  of  the 
temple  and  the  cultus,  in  the  Messianic  Age. 

With  the  exception  of  xxvi.  1,  where,  through  a  clerical 
error,  the  month  (not  the  day  of  the  month  !)  is  missing,  the 
dates  are  everywhere  given  according  to  year,  month  and 
day.  This  must  have  been  noted  down  at  the  time  by  the 
prophet  :  in  one  case  (xxiv.  2)  he  is  expressly  said  to  have 
done  so.  We  know  not  to  what  extent  Ezekiel  added  other 
kinds  of  remarks  to  these  notes.  We  only  know,  from  the 
thorough  homogeneousness  of  language  and  thoughts,  and  not 
less  from  the  occasional  glances  at  later  occurrences  (such  as 
the  blinding  of  Zedekiah,  xii.  13,  the  end  of  the  kingdom, 
xix.  12  ff.)  that  the  actual  composition  of  the  book  took  place 
during  the  later  life  of  the  prophet,  and  was  not  interrupted 
by  any  long  intervals. 

The  verdict  on  EzekiePs  literary  character  was  formerly 
influenced  entirely  by  the  assumption  that  he  had  before  him 
the  Pentateuch,  with  thejpriestly  legislation  at  its  head,  in  its 
complete  form.  On  this  assumption  it  was  not  possible  to 
find  many  original  thoughts  in  Ezekiel,  and  one  could  not  but 
marvel    greatly  that   he — a  priest  ! — should  come,  in   chaps. 

*  A  mistake,  no  doubt,  for  the  "eleventh  year."  Otherwise  the  messenger 
■who  brought  to  Tel  Abib  the  ne^Ys  of  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  was  eighteen 
months  in  doing  it. 


EZEKIEL.  80 

xl.-xlviii.,  to  recast,  in  many  respects  in  fresh  forms,  tlie  law 
which  had  long  been  held  sacred.  But  we  reach  quite  another 
conclusion  when  we  yield  to  tlie  force  of  facts  and  place  the 
so-called  Priests'  Code  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  exilic  and 
post-exilic  time.  Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.  then  becomes,  not  a  re- 
modelHng  hard  to  understand,  but  the  first  sketch  of  the 
priestly  legislation.  The  man  who  was  supposed  to  be 
a  bookworm  becomes  the  creator  of  new  ideas,  the  pioneer  of 
a  new  order  of  things,  a  man  of  practical  activity,  and 
activity  which  produces  an  extraordinary  result. 

To  estimate  aright  the  position  and  the  ulterior  aims  of 
Ezekiel  we  must  look  back  upon  the  years  since  623.  The- 
law-book  found  in  623  had  put  down  the  worship  at  the 
high-places  (at  all  events  after  the  building  of  the  temple)  as- 
a  transgression  which  must  thenceforward  be  entirely  forsaken. 
But  the  manner  in  which  the  priests  of  the  high-places  are 
recommended  to  the  benevolence  of  the  people,  and  in  which 
the  right  is  even  conceded  them  at  xviii.  6,  to  officiate  as 
priests  at  Jerusalem,  show  that  the  Deuteronomic  writer  did 
not  regard  the  worship  at  the  high-places  and  everything 
connected  with  it  as  an  inexpiable  sin  of  the  people.  Ifc 
seemed  to  him  that  it  was  not  yet  too  late  to  reform  and,  by 
the  zealous  practice  of  a  worship  acceptable  to  God,  to  save 
the  State.  But  the  subsequent  course  of  events  pronounced 
a  different  verdict.  Neither  had  the  reforming  zeal  which 
was  excited  from  above  proved  lasting — what  idolatrous 
abominations  in  the  temple  Ezekiel  could  tell  of  in  chap, 
viii. ! — nor  did  the  judgments  which  had  come  in  the  interval 
allow  of  the  conclusion  that  the  people's  guilt  had  diminished. 
It  is  at  this  point  that  EzekieFs  ideas  concerning  the  whole 
of  the  nation's  past  come  in.  To  him,  as  chaps,  xvi.  and 
xxiii.  set  forth  in  more  than  forcible  images,  it  was  from  the 
beginning  an  uninterrupted  series  of  heathen  abominations, 
an  endless  accumulation  of  inexpiable  guilt.  Ilence  there  is 
no  compassion  for  the  guilty.  Not  tiil  the  city  and  the 
temple  have  been  burnt,  till  famine  and  sword  and  exile 
have  done  their  work,  can  there  be  any  thought  of  showing 


"^0  §  5.    THE    PEEIOD    OP    THE    EXILE. 

grace  to  the  scanty  reDiuaut  whicli  by  tliat  time  will  liave 
been  sifted  again.  And  the  replanting  of  this  remnant^  the 
re-establishment  of  the  State  and  the  cultus,  must  be  done 
in  forms  which  will  exclude  for  ever  a  return  to  the  so 
heavily  punished  abominations.  "  Holiness/'  i.e.,  purity  from 
every  sort  of  stain,  is  to  be  the  character  of  the  new  divine 
commonwealth,  holiness,  not  merely  of  the  temple,  but  of 
the  whole  circuit  of  the  temple.,  indeed  of  the  whole  land 
and  people.  And  the  preservation  of  this  holiness  is 
guaranteed  by  a  series  of  symbols  and  inviolable  ordinances 
relating  to  the  holy  places,  times,  persons  and  actions.  These 
ordinances,  indeed,  are  not  regarded  as  of  equal  iuiport- 
ance  with  the  legitimate  worship  of  God,  but  they  are  the 
indispensable  conditions  of  this.  Ezekiel  thus  became  the 
creator  of  the  ceremonial  law,  the  spiritual  father  of  the 
Levitical  tendency  in  Judaism.  Its  foundation-lines,  as  we 
have  said,  are  to  be  seen  in  the  nine  last  chapters  of  his 
book.  It  was  a  great  mistake  to  see  nothing  but  allegories 
and  symbols  in  the  demands  which  the  prophet  there  makes. 
Where  there  are  such,  as  at  chap,  xlvii.  1-12,  they  are  easy 
to  interpret.  But  most  of  the  demands  must  be  understood 
to  be  seriously  intended  by  the  prophet,  and  they  were 
carried  out  in  the  priestly  legislation,  except  where  the  power 
of  traditional  custom  or  other  circumstauces  stood  in  their 
way.  The  most  important  of  all  the  innovations  is  intro- 
duced in  chap.  xliv.  6  ff.  Instead  of  the  uncircumcised 
strangers  who  have  hitherto  done  the  menial  work  of  the 
sanctuary  the  former  priests  of  the  high-places  (and  their 
■descendants)  are  to  do  it  in  the  future.  They  lose  their 
priestly  privileges :  henceforth  these  are  to  be  reserved  for 
the  sons  of  Zadok,  i.e.,  the  offspring  of  the  priestly  families 
■of  Jerusalem.  This  demand  of  Ezekiers  is  the  root  of  the 
distinction  between  Priests  and  Levites,  which  Deuteronom}^ 
knows  nothing  of,  whereas  it  plays  an  extremely  important 
role  in  the  Priestly  Law.  That  alone  is  sufficient  to  show 
the  proper  position  of  the  so-called  Priests'  Code — later  than 
J]zekiel. 


LAMENTATIONS.  91 

The  assertion  that,  except  in  tlie  last  nine  cliapters,  Ezekiel 
is  quite  destitute  of  originality,  or  tliat  'Hhe  propliet  Avas  stifled 
Tdj  the  writer  ^^  is  only  justifiable  to  this  extent,  that  Ezekiel 
must  really  be  styled  the  earliest  of  the  "  literary  prophets  " 
(in  the  narrower  sense  of  the  word).  Not  as  though  tliat 
operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  Ezekiel  in  particular 
brings  into  such  frequent  prominence,  were  purely  fanciful, 
or  as  though  no  nucleus  of  fact  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the 
visions.  But  those  elements  of  the  visions  which  cannot  be 
put  into  a  mental  picture  (cf.  especially  i.  11,  15  ff.),  and  those 
symbolical  acts  which  cannot  be  performed  (cf.  iv.  4ff.),  can 
only  be  regarded  as  tlie  literary  expression  of  prophetic  ideas. 
The  prophetic  discourses,  however,  are  not  lacking  in  new 
images  and  similes  of  all  kinds,  and  over  the  whole  there 
broods  so  profound  a  moral  earnestness,  so  clear  a  conscious- 
ness of  each  man^s  responsibility  for  what  he  does  and  what 
he  permits  (chaps,  xiv.,  xviii.,  xxxiii.),  that  it  must  be  called 
a  grievous  wrong  to  the  prophet  when  the  preceding  thirty- 
nine  chapters  are  forgotten  because  of  chaps,  xl.-xlviii.  He 
who  laid  the  foundation  of  Leviticism  is  yet — quite  in  the 
spirit  of  the  old  prophets — acquainted  with  only  one  means 
of  quickening  the  dry  bones,  and  that  is  the  breath  of  God 
which  enters  into  them,  brings  the  risen  ones  back  to  their 
native  soil  and  there  makes  an  everlasting  covenant  of  peace 
with  them  (xxxvii.  14,  26). 


2.  Lamentations. 

When  we  come  to  deal  with  the  so-called  ^^Law  of  Holiness" 
and  the  Priests^  Code,  we  shall  discover  the  form  in  which 
EzekieFs  programme  of  the  future  was  carried  out.  We  have 
first  to  do  with  a  set  of  literary  products  in  which  not  only 
the  phraseology  but  also  the  spirit  of  Deuteronomy  continued 
to  w^ork.  To  this  class  we  assign  the  Lamentations,  among 
the  poetical  productions;  the  Deuteronomistic  revision  of  all 


92  §  5.    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    EXILE. 

the  lilstorical  books,,  in  the  field  of  historiography;  and,  in 
that  of  prophecy,  the  consolatory  speech  of  the  "Great 
Unknown  ^^  (Tsa.  xl.  ff.),  and  some  other  prophetic  pieces 
which  are  now  incorporated  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah. 

Lamentations,  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  the  third  of  the  "Fes- 
tival Rolls/^  or  Megilloth  (more  precisely  the  Megillah  of  the 
9th  of  Ab,  the  day  of  the  burning  of  the  temple),  betrays  in 
almost  every  part  so  lively  a  recollection  of  the  closing  period 
of  the  siege  and  taking  of  Jerusalem,  that  at  least  the  greater 
portion  of  it  can  have  been  written  by  no  one  who  was  not 
an  eye-witness  or  a  younger  contemporary  of  these  events. 
The  supposition  that  Jeremiah  was  the  author  is  unknown 
to  the  Hebrew  Bible.  It  first  appears  in  the  exordium  of  the 
Lamentations  in  the  Greek  (hence  also  in  the  Latin)  Bible, 
and  perhaps  rests  only  on  the  erroneous  interpretation  of 
2  Chron.  xxxv.  25.  Babylonia — not,  as  others  preferred, 
Egypt — is  in  all  probability  the  country  where  it  was  com- 
posed. Chaps,  i.-iv.  are  alphabetical  poems;  and  in  chaps,  i.^ 
ii.,  iv.  each  verse,  in  chap.  iii.  each  set  of  three  verses,  begins 
with  one  of  the  twenty-two  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet 
(only  that  in  chaps,  ii.-iv.  'Ayhi  comes  after  Pe,  as  was 
originally  the  case  in  Ps.  xxxiv.  18,  17).  Besides  this,  there 
is  in  chaps,  i.-iv.  a  special  form  of  verse  (the  so-called  Lamen- 
tation-verse or  Qinah-verse,  discovered  by  Ley  and  Budde), 
in  which  a  short  first  clause  is  followed  by  a  still  shorter.  In 
chaps,  i.  and  ii.  each  of  our  verses  consists  of  three  Lamen- 
tation-verses ;  in  chap.  iii.  of  one;  in  chap.  iv.  of  two.  In 
chap.  V.  every  verse  has  two  clauses,  but  is  differently 
constructed  from  those  of  chaps,  i.-iv. 

The  older  view,  that  all  five  poems  are  from  the  same  hand, 
has  of  late  been  much  shaken.  After  Stade  (Geschichte  des 
Volkes  Israel,  p.  701)  had  assigned  chap.  iii.  to  a  much  later 
time,  Lohr  (Die  Klagelieder^  Gottingen,  1891)  distinguished 
between  the  poet  of  chaps,  ii.-iv.,  who  everywhere  addresses 
the  city  and  the  author  of  i.  and  v.,  who,  in  adding  these,, 
aimed  at  making  ii.-iv.  available  for  divine  service.  In  the 
Handkommentar  (Gott.,    1892),   Lohr   places   the  poet    of  ii. 


LAMICNTATIONS.  93 

and  iv.  about  570,  tlie  one  of  i.  and  v.  about  530,  wliiLst  ili.  is 
ascribed  to  a  third,  perhaps  somewhat  later,  poet.  Cornill 
also  (Einleitung  ins  Alte  Testament^,  p.  246  fp. ;  '^  ^,  p.  231) 
maintains  this  undoubtedly  correct  distinction,  in  so  far  as  to 
recognize  only  chaps,  ii.  and  iv.  as  the  "oldest  and  most  valu- 
able^^  part,  and  also  traces  chaps,  i,  and  v.  to  one  hand.  In  these, 
too,  impressive  utterance  is  given  to  the  wretchedness 
occasioned  by  the  invariably  cheerless  surroundings  and  the 
burdensome  consciousness  of  a  never-expiated  guilt  of  the 
people. 

To  the  same  period,  no  doubt,  belongs  the  splendid  poem 
Deut.  xxxii.   1-43,  which  at  xxxi.   19  if.    is  ascribed   to  God 
Himself,  and  at   His  behest   is   written  out   by   Moses   and 
Joshua,  and  at  v.  30  is  said  to  have  been  pronounced  aloud 
by  Moses  to  assembled  Israel.     But  the  poem  itself  contains 
nothing  to  necessitate   the   belief   that    it  was  composed   by 
Moses,  or  in  his  day.     The  poet  makes  no  secret  of  his  far 
later  standpoint  when  he  describes  the  time  of  Israel's  election 
and  the  bringing  out  of  Egypt  (v.  7)  as  "  the  days  of  old,^' 
treats  the  occupation  of  Canaan  and  the  enjoyment  of  all  the 
blessings  of  the  fertile  land  (v.  13  fF.)  as  a  historical  fact,  and 
(v.  15tf.)  represents  the  Divine  rejection  of  Israelas  the  inevitable 
result  of  Israel's  immeasurable  apostasy  and  incurable  ingrati- 
tude.   Reproaches  of  this  sort  would  doubtless  apply  to  various 
centuries,  and  we  can  therefore  understand  how  earlier  critics 
deemed  it  possible  to  place  the  poem  in  the  ninth  or  eighth 
centur}^,  and  thus  thought  of  it  as  accepted  by  the  Jahwist  (/) 
or  the  Elohist  (E).     A  keener  investigation  of  the  contents 
(especially  as  regards  the  vocabulary)  has  shown  the  relation- 
ship in  language  and  spirit  with  Jeremiah  and  Deuteronomy 
to  be  so  striking  as  absolutely  to  forbid  its  being  placed  earlier 
than  the  end  of  the  seventh  century.     When  we  also  consider 
that,  according  to   the  only  natural  explanation  of  the  con- 
clusion  (v.  30  ff.),  the  judgment  on  Israel  has  already  been 
executed,  and  that  now,  on  the  other  hand,  vengeance  is  to 
be  taken  on  the  arrogant  foes  who  have  wickedly  exceeded 
the  Divine  commission  to  chastise  Israel,  we  are  compelled 


94  §.5.   THE    PERIOD    OP    THE    EXILE. 

by  all  this  to  place  tlie  poem  in  the  Exile.  With  this  it  agrees 
that  in  v.  8^  according  to  the  original  text  which  is  preserved 
in  the  Greek  Bible,*  we  meet  with  a  view  which  cannot  be 
certainly  supported  by  any  but  exilic  and  post-exilic  passages. 


3.  The  Close  op  the  Deuteroxomistic  Historical  AVork. 

As  regards  the  products  of  the  Deuteronomistic  historiography, 
we  must  start  from  the  fact  adduced  on  p.  67  that  Deuteronomy 
(apart  from  the  still  more  recent  additions,  iv.  41-43,  x.  6-9, 
xxxii.  48-52,  xxxiv.  la,  7-9)  cannot  have  assumed  its  present 
form  till  the  Exile.  In  all  probability  a  yet  more  extensive 
work  of  redaction  was  very  intimately  connected  with  this, 
the  blending  of  the  compound  JE  (as  to  whose  origin  cf.  p.  61  f.) 
with  Deuteronomy,  and  the  Deuteronomistic  revision  and 
expansion  of  the  historical  books  from  the  Book  of  Judges  to 
the  Second  Book  of  Kings. 

In  the  four  lirst  books  of  the  Pentateuch  the  traces  of  the 
Deuteronomist  are  comparatively  infrequent.  Most  likely 
Gen.  xxvi.  5,  Exod.  xiii.  3-16,  xv.  25  f.,  belong  to  him,  as  well 
as  Exod.  xxxiv.  10b- 13,  Num.  xxi.  33-35,  and  much  else  in 
the  Pentateuch,  which,  for  the  sake  of  certainty,  we  have 
simply  designated  R  (Redactor).  The  hand  of  the  Deutero- 
nomist is  very  noticeable  in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  and  his- 
additions  are  at  times  so  closely  interwoven  with  /£"s  material 
that  the  analysis  of  the  sources  is  attended  with  great  diffi- 
culties, and  not  unfrequently  must  despair  of  a  certain  result. 
It  is  not  so  in  the  Book  of  Judges.  The  Deuteronomistic 
enlargements  (designated  Bi  in  the  Survey)  of  the  pre- 
Deuteronomic  Book  of  Judges  (on  which  cf.  above,  p.  21  ff.)  can 
here  be  pretty  certainly  detected  by  various  signs,  not  the 

*  Instead  of  "according  to  the  number  of  the  children  of  Israel,"  read 
"  according  to  the  number  of  the  angels  of  God,"  and  cf.  Deut.  iv.  19.  As 
Israel  is  governed  by  Jahweh,  so  the  heathen  nations,  according  to  His 
ordination  and  under  His  suzerainty,  are  ruled  by  inferior  gods  (cf.  especially 
Ps.  Ixxxii.)  or  "  princes  "  (Dan.  x.  13  ff.)- 


THE    CLOSE    OF    THE    DEUTERONOMISTIC    HISTORICAL    WORK.       95 

least  oF  wliicli  is  their  similarity  to  the  corresponding'  portions 
of  the  Books  of  Kings.  The  idea  that  the  Judges  were 
actual  lifelong  rulers  of  the  whole  people,  and  the  so-called 
"theocratic  pragmatism/^  i.e.,  the  tracing  all  the  people's 
fortunes  to  their  religious  behaviour,  are  to  be  attributed  to 
this  redactor,  and  next  to  these  his  chief  feature  is  the  fixed 
chronological  scheme.  This  is  founded  on  that  calculation  of 
the  interval  between  the  Exodus  and  the  building  of  the 
Temple  at  480  years,  which  we  have  mentioned  above,  p.  74. 
In  our  present  Book  of  Judges  593  years  are  given  to  the 
same  interval,*  and  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  final 
redactor  (see  below),  in  opposition  to  the  Deuteronomist's 
view,  adds  a  number  of  years  (110  in  all)  for  Othniel  and  the 
so-called  Minor  Judges,  and  also  the  three  years  of  Abimelech 
(according-  to  ix.  22). 

The  redactor,  designated  Ri,  in  the  Book  of  Judges  seems  to 
have  brought  his  revision  of  the  older  histories  down  to  the 
end  of  Samuel  and  Saul.  In  the  Books  of  Samuel,  apart  from 
the  chronological  notices  and  other  traces  of  his  activity, 
there  are  some  other  characteristic  pieces  from  a  Deuterono- 
mivstic  hand.  Thus  at  1  Sam.  ii.  35  ff.  there  is  an  undeniable 
reference  to  the  fate  of  the  non-Zadokite  priests  after  Josiah\s 
reform  of  the  ritual.  The  later  origin  of  1  Sam.  vii.  3ff.  is 
shown  by  its  ignoring  (v.  13  f.)  the  oppression  of  Israel 
by  the  Philistines,  which  lasted  down  to  David^s  time.  In 
1  Sam.  xii.  the  reviser's  hand  appears  to  come  out  specially  at 
the  close.  At  2  Sam.  vii.,  apart  from  the  general  tone  of  the 
speech,  it  is  most  recognizable  in  v.  12  f.  The  original  words 
(retained  in  v.  27)  were:  "  Thou  shalt  not  build  me  a  house 
but  J  thee!''  altered  into,  "Not  thou,  but  thy  son!"  The  latest 
Deuteronomistic  insertion  in  the  old  David-Stories  is  1  Kings 
ii.  1-9,  the  so-called  Testament  of  David.  The  principal  argu- 
ment against  its  belonging  to  the  David-Source  (Da)  is  that  in 
the  latter  the  execution  of  Joab  and  Shimei  is  not  ascribed  to 

*  To  the  390  years  which  we  get  by  adding  up  the  numbers  in  the  Book  of 
Judges  we  must  add  forty  years  each  for  Moses,  Joshua,  Eli,  Samuel  and  David, 
and  the  three  iirstjyears  of  Solomon. 


96  §  5.    THE    PERIOD    OP    THE    EXILE. 

David's  orders  but  to  otlier  causes.  It  is  difficult  to  say  wHat 
end  was  contemplated  by  the  interpolation.  If  Solomon,  the 
builder  of  the  temple,  was  to  be  thus  freed  from  blood- 
guiltiness,  David,  on  the  other  hand,  was  credited  with  such 
revengefulness,  nay,  treachery,  that  he  lost  as  much  as 
Solomon  gained.  On  the  (second)  Deuteronomistic  revision 
of  the  Books  of  Kings  cf .  above,  p.  72  f.  To  it  is  probably  to 
be  ascribed  the  transplanting  of  1  Kings  i.,  ii.  from  its  con- 
nection with  the  David-Stories  (cf.  above,  p.  27)  to  the  head 
of  the  Book  of  Kings. 


3.  Deutero-Isaiah  (and  Trito-Isaiah). 

The  connected  historical  work  which  originated  in  the  pains 
taken  by  the  Deuteronomistic  redactors  (for  we  can  hardly 
think  of  only  one  hand  as  doing  it  all)  embraced  about  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  matter  in  the  historical  books  from  Genesis 
to  the  end  of  the  Second  Book  of  Kings.  All  these  supple- 
ments and  revisions  of  the  older  literature  bore,  as  we  have 
several  times  remarked,  the  stamp  of  Deuteronomy,  of  legis- 
lation in  the  spirit  of  prophetism.  That  spirit  was  yet  alive 
and  capable  of  creative  acts,  as  is  evinced  by  a  wonderful 
monument  of  its  activity  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  Exile,  the 
•so-called  Deutero-Isaiah,*  i.e.,  chap.  xl.  if.  of  our  present 
Book  of  Isaiah. 

It  is  mainly  the  great  events  of  the  time  about  546  B.C., 
the  overthrow  of  the  kingdoms  of  Media  and  Lydia  by  Cyrus, 
-which  are  more  or  less  clearly  reflected  in  chaps,  xl.-xlviii.  The 
time  of  consolation  is  come,  the  judgment  on  Judah  is  at  an  end. 
According  to  His  primaeval  counsel,  and  the  prophetic  procla- 
mation made  long  ago,  the  Almighty  Incomparable  God  will 

*  This  name  (literally  "Second  Isaiah")  is  not  meant  to  express  the 
conjecture  (which  has  actually  been  offered)  that  the  author  of  these  nine 
•chapters  was  also  called  Isaiah,  but  simply  to  indicate  that  they  form  an  inde- 
pendent second  part  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah. 


DEOTERO-ISAIAH   (aND   TRITO-ISAIAH).  97 

bring  His  people  liome,  and  put  to  shame  the  idols  of  the 
heathen.  He  has  chosen  Cyrus  as  the  instrument  for  chas- 
tising Babylon  and  delivering  Israel.  It  is  this  deliverance 
which  opens  to  Israel  the  possibility  of  fulfilling  the  mission 
for  the  salvation  of  the  world  entrusted  to  it  by  the  eternal 
counsel  of  God,  hindered  by  its  own  sins  and  blindness,  but 
not  on  that  account  cancelled.  With  the  renewal  of  the 
people  its  glory,  as  that  of  a  priestly  people,  is  to  be  manifested, 
and  the  worship  of  God  in  Spirit  and  Truth  is  to  take  the 
place  of  the  dead  service  of  works.  The  new  Jerusalem  is  the 
prelude  of  a  renewing  of  heaven  and  earth  :  the  re-union  of 
all  the  dispersed,  everlasting  salvation  for  the  redeemed,  and 
everlasting  suffering  for  the  ungodly,  form  the  close.  .; 

But  this  gives  only  a  slight  idea  of  the  overflowing  wealth 
of  prophetic  ideas  in  these  twenty-seven  chapters.  Two  causes 
render  it  very  difficult  to  give  a  precise  statement  of  their 
contents.  There  is  no  strictly  logical  consecution  of  thoughts. 
Complaints  and  reproofs  alternate  with  consolations  and 
promises;  words  of  hope  and  joy  are  followed  by  others, 
occasioned,  probably,  by  fresh  events,  betraying  a  depressed 
mood.  The  external  form  also  alternates  between  an  exquisite 
prose  and  a  purely  poetic  diction.  The  other  difficulty  is  the 
ambiguousness  of  what  is  said  concerning  one  of  the  weightiest 
ideas  in  the  whole  book,  the  ^^  Servant  of  Jahweh.^'  In  one 
set  of  passages  (xli.  8,  xliv.  1,  21,  &c.)  this  as  certainly  means 
the  people  of  Israel,  as  in  another  (xlix.  5,  1.  10)  it  is  clearly 
distinguished  therefrom.  If,  as  is  natural,  we  take  these 
latter  passages  to  mean  the  spiritual  Israel,  the  truly  theo- 
cratic-minded ones,  to  whom  has  been  entrusted  the  mission, 
not  only  to  the  heathen  but  also  to  their  own  people,  a  fresh 
difficulty  arises  out  of  the  famous  section  on  the  Undeservedly 
Suffering  Servant  of  Jahweh,  lii.  13  ff.  The  ascription  of  the 
individual  traits  to  a  plurality  instead  of  to  a  single  person  is 
exceedingly  difficult,  for  the  prophet  certainly  belonged  to  the 
moral  kernel  of  the  people,  and  yet  he  sets  himself  (liii.  2  ff.) 
with  the  rest,  in  contrast  to  the  Servant  of  Jahweh.  But 
this  is  not  all.     After  chap.  liii.  only  Servants  of  Jahweh  (in 

7 


"98  §    5.    THE    PERIOD    OF   THE    EXILE. 

the  plural)  are  spoken  of  (liv.  17,  &c.).  Dulim  ("  Kommentar 
iiber  das  Buch  Jesaja/'  Gott.,  1892)  attempted  to  solve  the 
riddle  by  assuming  tliat  tlie  so-called  Ebed-Jaliweli  (treating 
of  the  Servant  of  Jahweh)  Poems,  xlii.  1-4,  xlix.  1-G,  1.  4-9, 
lii.  13— liii.  12,  were  written  between  500  and  450,  and  there- 
fore were  subsequently  incorporated  with  Deutero-Isaiah. 
Others  have  distinguished  between  the  poet  and  Deutero- 
Isaiah,  whilst  holding  that  the  poems  were  written  contem- 
poraneously with  the  latter.  Others  altogether  dispute  the 
separation  of  these  poems  from  the  work  of  Deutero-Isaiah. 

The  observation  already  made  by  Eichhorn  that  part  of 
the  utterances  of  Deutero-Isaiah  can  only  be  explained 
as  belonging-  to  the  early  days  after  the  Return,  has 
recently  been  repeated  and  thoroughly  established.  The 
only  dispute  about  it  is  as  to  where  the  line  is  to  be 
drawn  between  exilic  and  post-exilic  matter.  Stade  (Gesch. 
Israels,  ii.  70  f.)  designates  only  chaps.  Ixiii.-lxvi.  as  at 
least  revised,  but  the  result  reached  by  Kuenen  (Einl., 
ii.  235  ff.),  chiefly  through  observation  of  the  style  and 
language,  is  that  the  part  brought  from  Babylon  in  536 
(probably  xl.-xlix.,  lii.  1-12)  was  the  nucleus  of  a  collec- 
tion which  expanded  still  further,  to  which  also  its  original 
author  may  have  added,  till  at  length,  probably  in  the 
sixth  century,  the  whole  was  united  and  in  some  measure 
arranged.  This  hypothesis  may  satisfactorily  explain  much 
that  is  surprising,  but  the  idea  that  various  hands  have  been 
at  work  from  chap.  1.  onwards  is  a  little  suspicious,  seeing 
that  there  is  such  far-reaching  harmony  both  of  thoughts 
and  of  form.  Stade,  therefore,  and  Cornill  (Einl.,^  p.  153  f.  ;^ 
p.  160  f.)  would  only  admit  that  chaps.  Ixiii.-lxvi.  were  supple- 
mented or  revised  by  another  hand.  And  Cornill  held  it 
possible  that  chaps,  xlix.-lxii.  weve  not  written  out  till  after 
the  Return  (but  by  the  same  author  as  xl.-xlviii.).  Duhm,  on 
the  contrary,  ascribes  Ivi.-lxvi.  to  a  Trito-Isaiah  (^^  third 
Isaiah  ''),  Avorking  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. 

The  ascription  of  these  twenty-seven  chapters  to  Isaiah,  son 
of  Amoz_,  which  is  taken  for  granted,  by  Jesus  Sirach  (xlviii. 


ISAIAH  XXXIV.  r._,  XIII.  F.,  XXI.  1-10.  99 

■27),  has  not  the  slightest  support  in  the  text.  Nowhere  is 
there  a  trace  of  the  author's  wishing  to  pass  for  Isaiah.  On 
the  contrary,  he  describes  the  circumstances  of  the  time  in 
which  he  lived  so  clearly  that  only  an  exposition  misled  by 
false  tradition  could  find  prediction  here.  Jerusalem  still  lies 
in  ruins :  the  people  addressed  still  languish  in  exile  (xl.  2, 
xliv.  26,  xlv.  13,  xlvii.  6,  xlviii.  20,  Hi.  2f.,  11,  Ixiv.  9f.). 
The  Chaldc\}ans,  whose  capital  is  Babylon,  are  the  oppressors 
(xliii.  14,  xlvii.  1,  5,  xlviii.  14,  &c.).  Cyrus  (Koresli;  we  meet 
the  same  form  of  the  name  at  Ezra  i.  1,  7  f.,  v.  13  ;  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  22  f .)  is  the  instrument  of  deliverance.  Hence  it  is 
simply  foolish  to  assert  that  by  placing  Deutero-Isaiah  at 
the  end  of  the  Exile  we  make  it  out  to  be  a  forgery.  In 
all  probability  the  mistaken  connection  with  the  Book  of 
Isaiah  (which  clearly  ends  with  chaps,  xxxvi. -xxxix !)  is  to 
ibe  explained  as  follows.  According  to  a  Jewish  tradition, 
which  is  still  attested  by  the  oldest  German  and  French 
manuscripts,  the  original  order  of  the  prophets  was  this  : 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah,  and  the  Book  of  the  Twelve.  In 
this  arrangement  by  the  size  of  the  books  Deutero-Isaiah 
had  its  proper  place  betwixt  Isaiah  and  Hosea.  When 
Isaiah,  on  chronological  grounds,  was  put  at  the  head,  the 
twenty-seven  chapters  which  had  no  title  were  taken  over 
with  it,  and  thus  a  tradition  was  created  which,  in  spite  of  its 
lack  of  foundation,  has  tenaciously  asserted  itself  for  many 
centuries. 


5.    IsA.    XXXIV.  f.,    XIII.  f.,    XXI.    1-10. 

Chaps,  xxxiv.  and  xxxv.  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  are  of 
precisely  the  same  tone  and  spirit  as  Deutero-Isaiah,  and 
therefore  are  ascribed  to  him  by  many.  They  are  a  threat 
against  the  Edomites  because  of  the  wrong  done  by  tliese  to 
Jerusalem  (when  it  was  taken  and  destroyed:  cf.  Ps.  cxxxvii.  7, 
Lam.  iv.  21),  and  a  promise  to  the  exiles  of  a  happy  return 

7  ^ 


100  §    5.    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    EXILE. 

to  Zion.  It  is  questionable  whether  the  two  chapters  form 
one  connected  oracle  :  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it 
should  be  dated  in  the  Exile  or  soon  after. 

The  oracle  of  the  fall  of  Babylon  (Isa.  xiii.-xiv.  23),  also 
attributed  to  Isaiah,  is  of  a  somewhat  different  kind.  As 
a  specimen  of  poetry  it  is  one  of  the  most  splendid  creations 
in  the  realm  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  is  specially  true  of 
the  satirical  song  on  the  fallen  King  of  Babylon  (xiv.  4ff.). 
As  in  Deutero-Isaiah,  the  historical  background  (especially  at 
xiii.  19)  is  clearly  to  be  distinguished  from  the  prediction. 
The  siege  of  Babylon  by  the  Modes  and  Persians  is  close  at 
hand,  and  with  it  the  deliverance  of  the  people  who  have 
been  so  long  enslaved. 

Finally,  Isaiah  xxi.  1-10  is  placed  by  most  in  the  same  time 
(that  of  the  overthrow  of  Babylon  by  the  combined  Modes  and 
Persians;  cf.  verse  2).  But  the  explanation  of  this  difficult 
section  by  means  of  the  relations  prevalent  about  710  B.C.  is 
not  altogether  impossible,  and  consequently  its  derivation 
from  Isaiah  is  not  excluded. 


6.  The  Law  of  Holiness. 

All  these  prophetic  voices,  including  Deutero-Isaiah, 
are  of  a  different  spirit  from  Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.  They  were- 
doubtless  preceded  by  a  work,  the  so-called  Law  of  Holiness, 
in  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.,  which  is  closely  related  to  the  chapters  in 
Ezekiel.  The  name  was  given  by  Klostermann  on  account  of 
the  frequency  with  which  the  Divine  commands  are  grounded 
on  the  proposition,  ^^for  I  Jahweh  am  holy  (xx.  26,  xxi.  8,  &c.), 
or  "I  am  Jahweh,  who  hallows  you  (or  ^them^).''  The 
characteristic  which  immediately  strikes  us  is  that  of  a  priestly 
law,  satisfying-,  above  all  things,  the  requirements  of  the 
ritual.  The  Deuteronomic  demand  that  sacrifices  should  be 
brought  to  only  one  sanctuary,  allowing,  however,  according 
to  Deut.  xii.  15,  that  animals  might  be  slaughtered  and  eaten 


THE    LA.W    OP    HOLINESS.  101 

at  any  place,  is  now  raised  higlier,  so  as  to  mean  that  every 
act  of  slaughter  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  sacrifice,  and  conse- 
quently can  only  be  performed  at  the  one  legitimate  sanctuary. 
The  unity  of  the  cultus,  which  the  Deuteronomic  writer  does 
not  require  till  after  the  temple  had  been  l)uilt,  is  therefore 
here  carried  back  to  the  age  of  the  Journey  through  the 
Desert.  Then  there  follow  in  confused  alternation  regulations 
concerning  the  eating  of  blood  and  carcases,  forbidden  degrees 
of  marriage  and  sins  of  unchastity,  treatment  of  the  sacrifices, 
the  gleanings,  the  rights  of  neighbours  in  every  conceivable 
relation,  also  the  priests^  duties,  the  celebration  of  the  rebgious 
festivals,  the  Sabbatic  year  and  the  Year  of  Jubilee — all  from 
the  point  of  view  that  the  trangression  of  these  command- 
ments defiles  the  land  and  violates  the  divinely  willed  holiness 
of  the  people,  and  thus  of  Jahweh  Himself.  And  all  these 
commandments  are  introduced  as  oral  directions  given  by  God 
to  Moses  that  he  might  hand  them  on  to  Aaron  and  the  people. 
According  to  the  subscription,  xxvi.  46,  Mount  Sinai  is  the 
scene  of  the  revelation,  and  thus  the  sanctuary  is  the  "  tent  of 
revelation''  (Luther,  "Die  Hiitte  des  Stifts'').  The  spiritual 
relationship  v/ith  Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.  is  of  such  a  kind  that  this 
prophet  has  been  held  by  famous  critics  to  be  the  actual 
author  of  the  Law  of  Holiness. 

Although  we  have  thus  far  spoken  of  this  law-book  as  a 
literary  unity,  Ave  must  now  point  out  that  in  it  also  very 
diverse  constituents,  and  consequently  a  subsequent  revision 
of  an  older  original,  have  recently  been  demonstrated.  Most 
scholars  follow  Klostermann  in  designating  this  original  by 
II,  i.e.,  Law  of  Holiness ;  Dillniann  uses  S,  i.e..  Law  of  Sinai ; 
Kuenen,  P^,  i.e.,  first  stratum  of  the  Priests'  Law.  The  only 
outstanding  dispute  concerning  it  is  as  to  its  extent.  It  has 
been  shown  probable  that  some  other  pieces  (Lev.  xi.,  some 
passages  in  xiii.-xv. ;  and  according  to  Dillmann,  Exod.  xxxi. 
13 ff.;  Lev.  V.  1-G,  21  ff.;  Num.  x.  9  ff.,  xv.  38  fif.)  belonged  to 
the  original  Law  of  Holiness.  And  within  chaps,  xvii.-xxvi. 
the  boundaries  between  the  original  and  the  additions  have 


102  §    5.    THE    PERIOD    or    THE    EXILE. 

been  very  differently  drawn.  According  to  Dillmann 
(Kommentar  zu  Num.  bis  Josua,  p.  635  ff.)  these  chapters 
contain  a  redactor's  amalgamation  of  two  varying  revisions  of 
the  Law  of  Sinai  (which  Dillmann  believes  to  be  very  ancient). 
On  the  other  hand,  the  most  recent  discussion  of  this  compli- 
cated question  (Bantsch_,  Das  Heiligkeitsgesetz,  Erfurt,  1893) 
distinguishes  between  chaps,  xviii.-xx.  (W)  as  post-Deutero- 
nomic  but  prior  to  Ezekiel,  and  the  group  later  than  Ezekiel, 
£r^  (chaps,  xxi.  and  xxii.)  and  H^  (chaps,  xvii.  and  xxvi.).  In 
any  case  the  entire  corpus  received  its  present  stamp  from  a 
hand  which  was  most  closely  related  to  the  author  or  authors 
of  the  Priests'  Code  proper.  This  comes  out  with,  especial 
clearness  at  xxiii.  36.  In  harmony  with  Deut.  xvi.  15  and 
Ezek.  xlv.  25,  a  seven-days'  celebration  of  the  Harvest  Festival 
was  here  commanded  originally  (v.  34)  :  in  accordance  with  the 
precept  in  the  Priests'  Code  the  reviser  added  the  eighth 
day.  But  in  spite  of  its  points  of  contact  Avith  Deuteronomy, 
the  original  Law  of  Holiness  was  not  so  closely  allied  to  it  as 
to  the  Priests'  Code,  which  was  soon  after  taken  in  hand  in 
the  same  spirit. 


§  6.  TBE  POST-EXirJC  PERIOD. 

Haggai  and  Zechaeiah. — Malachi. 

The  edict  of  Cyrus  (538)  threw  open  the  way  home  to  the 
exiles.  The  hopes  with  which  at  least  part  of  them  trod  it  may 
be  discovered  in  such  prophetic  utterances  as  Isaiah  xxxv.  and 
Zeph.  iii.  14  if.  But  grave  hindrances  were  soon  interposed 
which  threatened  the  existence  of  the  new  colony  and  brought 
down  the  joyous  spirit  of  those  who  had  returned.  According 
to  Ezra  iii.  10  ff.  the  foundation  of  the  temple  was  laid  soon 
after  the  Return :  but  it  was  not  till  after  520  that  the 
building  was  more  vigorously  prosecuted.  The  contempo- 
rary prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah  give  us  instructive 
glimpses  into  the  circumstances  and  feelings  of  this  latter 
period. 

Both  are  mentioned  at  Ezra  v.  1  and  vi.  14  as  zealous 
promoters  of  the  building  of  the  temple.  Three  of  the  four 
oracles  of  Haggai  are  devoted  to  this  object;  and  all  are 
dated  precisely  by  the  month  and  day  of  the  second  year  of 
Darius  (520).  In  i.  1-11  he  exhorts  Zerubbabel  and  the  high 
priest  Joshua  to  greater  zeal  in  promoting  the  building,  and 
contradicts  the  assertion  that  the  time  for  this  has  not  yet 
come.  The  appendix  (v.  12  ff.)  tells  of  the  good  result  of 
this  exhortation.  In  ii.  1-9  he  consoles  the  leaders  and  the 
rest  of  the  people,  especially  those  who  had  seen  Solomon^s 
temple,  for  the  poverty  of  the  new  building.  The  old  promises 
are  yet  to  be  fulfilled  :  through  them  shall  the  glory  of  this 
second  temple  be  greater  than  that  of  the  first.  In  ii.  10-19 
the  prophet  teaches  that  all  sacrifices  are  useless  if  they 
neglect  the  duty  of  zealously  prosecuting  the  building  of  the 
temple.  The  fourth  oracle  (ii.  20  ff.)  promises  Zerubbabel  that 
when  the  heathen  world  is  overthrown,  i.e.,  when  the  Messianic 
Kingdom  dawns,  he  shall  be  a  signet-ring  in  God^s  hand. 


104  §    G.    THE    rOST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

It  is  highly  probable  that  Haggai  himself  was  one  of  those 
who  had  seen  the  former  temple  :  in  that  case  he  must  have 
been  more  than  seventy  years  old  in  520.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  his  whole  manner  of  speaking  is  that  of  an  aged  man ; 
even  in  more  elevated  passages  it  does  not  go  beyond  the 
bounds  of  prose. 

Zechariah,  the  author  of  Zecli.  i.-vili.  (the  so-called  Proto- 
Zechariah;  we  shall  have  to  speak  later  of  chaps,  ix.-xiv.,  the 
'^Deutero-Zechariah^^)  is  called  son  of  Berechiah,  son  of  Iddo, 
in  i.  1,  but  at  Ezra  v.  1,  vi.  14,  son  of  Iddo.  The  latter  state- 
ment can  hardly  have  been  meant  to  bring  out  prominently 
that  the  prophet  belonged  to  the  iiric'stlij  famihj  wdiich  was 
called  after  Iddo  (Neh.  xii.  4,  16).  It  is  more  likely  that 
"son  of  Berechiah ^^  Zech.  i.  1,  was  subsequently  interpolated  : 
Kuenen  conjectures  that  it  was  borrowed  from  an  earlier  title 
of  chaps,  ix.-xi.,  which  assigned  them  to  a  Zechariah,  son  of 
Berechiah. 

The  Prologue  (i.  1-6),  dated  in  the  eighth  month  of  the 
year  520,  exhorts  the  present  generation  not  to  neglect  the 
call  to  repentance,  like  their  fathers,  who  therefore  had  to 
experience  the  wrathful  judgment  of  God.  Connected  with 
this  are  chaps,  i.  7 — vi.  8,  the  seven  (or,  if  ii.  5  ff.  is  taken  as 
an  independent  section,  eight)  Visions  of  the  Night,  dated 
from  the  24th  day  of  the  11th  month  of  520.  Although  seen 
in  the  night  all  these  diverse  images,  which  are  explained  to 
the  prophet  by  an  angel,  issue  in  consoling  promises  relating 
to  the  complete  restoration  of  Judah  to  favour  and  the  humili- 
ation of  the  heathen.  The  appendix,  vi.  9-15,  also  gives  a 
comforting  promise  concerning  the  Messianic  time.  The 
second  main  division  (chaps,  vii.,  viii.)  contains  a  prophetic 
decision  relating  to  the  fasts  which  had  hitherto  been  kept. 
Jahweh  does  not  desire  these  fast  days  (which  commemorate 
the  taking  of  Jerusalem  and  the  murder  of  Gedaliah)  :  they 
should  rather  be  turned  into  joyous  festivals  in  expectation 
of  the  blessings  of  the  Messianic  time.  Although  Zechariah^s 
language  is  somewhat  more  vivid  than  Haggai's  he  seldom 
rises,  above  the  forms  of  prose. 


MALACHI.  105 

Tlie  last  proplicfc  wlio  probably  laboured  before  the  great 
turning-point,  of  the  year  444  (see  below)  was  Malachi.  This 
name  might  be  the  shortened  form  of  Malachiah  (as  in  the 
Oreek  Bible),  i.e.,  "  Jahweh's  Messenger."  But  it  has  been 
•truly  observed  that  a  new-born  babe  could  scarcely  be  so 
called.  Moreover  Malachi  is  not  called  a  prophet  at  i.  1,  and 
the  three  superscriptions,  Zecli.  ix.  1,  xii.  ],  Mai.  i.  1,  were 
■obviously  shaped  by  the  same  hand.  Hence  it  can  hardly  be 
doubted  that  maV  dhlu  (^^  my  messenger")  i.  1,  is  only  a 
-catchword  taken  from  iii.  1.  It  is  an  ancient,  but  assuredly 
idle,  conjecture  that  no  less  a  person  than  Ezra  is  here 
concealed. 

The  discourse  of  this  unknown  prophet  rebukes  the  dis- 
honouring of  Jail  well  by  sacrifices  unworthy  of  Him.  And  the 
ourse  is  first  to  fall  on  the  priests,  who  thus  forget  tlie  high 
calling  and  privilege  of  Levi  (ii.  1-9).  Severe  blame  is  then 
jaddressed  to  those  who  married  heathen  wives  and  put  away 
'^  the  wife  of  their  youth,'^  and  those  who  blasphemed  Jahweli 
by  doubting  His  righteousness  (ii.  10-17).  But  Jahweh  will 
send  His  messenger  (according  to  iii.  2o,  Elijah)  to  prepare 
His  way  ;  for  He  will  soon  appear  to  destroy  manifold  kinds  of 
sinners  amongst  the  people  and  to  deliver  the  godly  (chap.  iii.). 

The  idea  formerly  prevalent  that  Ezra's  activity  is  presup- 
posed all  through  the  prophecy  has  recently  been  contested,"^ 
with  a  view  of  showing  that  it  must  be  placed  earlier  than 
Ezra.  No  doubt  its  insistence  on  the  strict  observance  of  the 
sacrificial  precepts  (i.  7  ff .,  13  f.,  iii.  10)  reminds  us  of  the  zeal 
for  the  law  which  originated  with  the  oath  to  obey  Ezra's  priestly 
law-book.  Yet  there  were  legal  precepts  before  Ezra  :  at  iii. 
22  attention  is  expressly  called  to  the  "  statutes  and  ordin- 
ances "  which  God  gave  at  Horeb,  an  obvious  reference  to 
Deuteronomy,  even  as  the  spirit  and  language  of  that  law- 
book is  elsewhere  noticeable  in  Malachi.  But  the  observances 
of  such  ritual  laws  as  were  extant  had  not  hitherto  been  so 
strongly  insisted  on.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  such 
offences  as  are  rebuked  at  Mai.  i.  7  ff.  and  lo  f.  could  have 
*  Especially  by  Stade,  Geschichte  Israels,  ii.  133. 


106  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PEEIOD. 

been  committed  after  the  engagement  to  observe  the  Priests' 
Law  (444).  Such  circumstances  also  as  are  presupposed  at 
ii.  11  if.  are  incomprehensible  after  the  Draconic  measures  of 
Ezra  (Ezra  ix.,  x. ;  about  457  B.C.).  The  very  latest  date 
possible  would  be  that  adopted  by  some  recent  writers,  prior 
to  Nehemiah^s  second  residence  (4-32),  seeing  that  he  also  had 
to  contend  with  mixed  marriages  (Neh.  xiii.  4ff.)  and  neglect 
of  the  tithes  (Neh.  xiii.  10;  cf.  Mai.  iii.  10).  Yet  it  remains 
more  probable  that  Malachi  is  to  be  "pijlaced  earlier  than  458. 

The  peculiarity  of  this  prophet's  language,  which,  for  the 
rest,  is  simple  prose,  like  Haggai's  and  Zechariah's,  is  its 
predilection  for  a  kind  of  dialogue  between  God  and  the 
people;  so  at  i.  2,  6,  7;  ii.  14,  17;  iii.  7,  8,  13. 


2.  The  Priests'  Code  and  the  Law-book  or  Ezra. — The 
Close  of  the  Pentateuch  and  op  the  Historical 
Work  extending  prom  Gen.  i.  to  2  Kings  xxv. 

The  programme  for  the  theocracy  of  the  future — we  might 
briefly  say,  for  the  priestly  commonwealth — was  sketched  by 
Ezekiel.  The  first  attempt  to  carry  out  this  programme  was 
contained  in  the  original  Law  of  Holiness  (see  above,  p.  100). 
But  we  have  no  knowledge  as  to  the  Law  of  Holiness 
obtaining  official  recognition  in  the  worship  at  Jerusalem  after 
the  Eeturn.  Something  quite  different  can  be  shown  to  have 
happened  :  even  after  the  Exile  the  further  development  o£ 
the  Priests'  Law  was  most  zealously  pursued  in  the  priestly 
circles  which  had  remained  behind  in  Babylon.  We  say  ''  In 
the  priestly  circles."  For  it  will  appear  that  differences  are 
not  wanting  which  point  to  divergent  theories  and  therefore 
to  diverse  hands  and  circles  participating  in  the  work.  The 
priestly  history  and  law-book  in  the  Pentateuch  was  the 
product  of  various  priestly  schools  in  the  period  between  500' 
and  400  B.C.,  first  at  Babylon,  then  at  Jerusalem.  Apart 
from  the  ^'^  Law  of  Holiness,"  which  was  worked  up  into  it. 


THE    PKIESTS'    CODE    AND    THE    LAW-BOOK    OF    EZRA.  107 

the  followiDg  strata  can  be  clearly  distiiiguislied  :  the  Priests' 
Code  proper  (about  500) ;  the  "  Law-book  of  Moses  ^*  (pub- 
lished 444),  in  all  probability  drawn  up  by  Ezra  himself ;  and 
the  final  redaction,  occasioned  probably  by  the  blending  of 
the  Priests'  Law  with  the  ohier  historical  work  {JED), 
about  400  B.C.  But  as  regards  the  spirit  which  pervades 
thein  and  the  fundamental  assumptions  from  which  they  start, 
all  the  parts  bear  so  homogeneous  a  stamp  that  we  have 
contented  ourselves  in  the  "  Survey  ^'  with  the  common  desig- 
nation P,  i.e.,  Priests'  Writing.  This  homogeneousness  may 
justify  us  in  attempting*  here  to  characterize  the  whole  as  it 
now  lies  before  us. 

The  Priests'  Writing  begins,  like  /and  E,  with  a  preliminary 
history  of  the  people.  But  it  gives  this  in  such  extremely 
scanty  outlines  as  to  be  only  comprehensible  when  we  think 
of  the  detailed  representation  in  J  and  jE/as  universally  known. 
The  Cosmogony  (Gen.  i.),  in  which  the  artistic  arrangement 
of  the  six  days'  work  and  the  highly  developed  idea  of  God 
are  especially  noticeable,  is  followed  in  chap.  v.  by  a  list  of  the 
patriarchs  from  Adam  to  Noah,  then  by  an  account  of  the 
Deluge  in  a  quite  different  chronological  framework  from 
the  Jahwist's,  then  by  the  so-called  covenant  with  Noah 
(chap.  ix.).  This  was  succeeded  by  a  Table  of  the  Nations^ 
of  which  only  part  is  contained  in  chap,  x.,  a  list  of  the 
patriarchs  from  Shem  to  Abraham  (chap,  xi.),  and  quite  short 
notices  on  the  separation  of  Abraham  from  Lot  and  the  birth 
of  Ishmael.  Only  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision  with 
Abraham  (chap,  xvii.)  and  the  purchase  of  the  burying-place 
at  Hebron  (chap,  xxiii.)  are  more  fully  treated  ;  the  death  of 
Abraham,  the  sending  of  Jacob  to  Mesopotamia  and  his 
return,  more  briefly  ;  and,  with  extreme  brevity,  Esau's  sepa- 
ration from  Jacob,  Jacob's  going  down  into  Egypt,  as  well 
as  his  death,  and  his  burial  in  the  cave  at  Hebron.  In  this 
series  of  notices  gaps  can  no  doubt  be  perceived;  before 
XXV.  2Gb  the  birth  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  after  xxviii.  7  something 
or  other  about  Jacob's  sojourn  with  Laban,  must  have  been 
mentioned.     In  like  manner  Joseph  must  have  been  spoken 


108  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

of  somewhere  before  xlvi.  6.  But  all  these  gaps  were  doubtless 
filled  lip  with  such  scanty  notices  that  the  final  redactor  who  in 
other  places  considered  the  Priestly  Writing  so  carefully  could 
dispense  with  them.  There  is,  however,  no  more  instructive 
example  of  the  manner  in  which  P  takes  for  granted  the 
contents  of  JE,  and  therefore  simply  recapitulates  in  the 
briefest  form,  than  Gen.  xix.  29.  This  one  verse  reproduces 
almost  the  entire  contents  of  Gen.  xviii.  and  xix. 

,  In  Exodus  also  the  preliminary  history  down  to  the  legisla- 
tion at  Sinai  is  somewhat  scantily  treated.  But  at  chap.  xxv. 
the  great  consecutive  codes  of  law  begin  which  extend  almost 
uninterruptedly  to  Num.  x.  28  (but  see  Exod.  xxxii.-xxxiv.). 
After  this,  too,  we  meet  with  detailed  laws  and  narratives 
from  the  same  source,  part  of  them  closely  interwoven  with  JE. 
An  account  of  the  death  of  Joshua  in  all  probability  formed 
its  conclusion  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  (after  long  statements 
about  the  apportionment  of  the  Holy  Land  amongst  the  several 
tribes  and  the  boundaries  of  these) ;  for  Joshua  xxiv.  29b, 
■can  scarcely  be  from  any  other  source  than  P. 

If  we  now  ask  for  the  signs  which  justify  the  ascription 
of  whole  chapters  or  even  single  verses  and  parts  of  verses  to 
the  Priestly  Writing,  a  whole  series  of  these  can  be  mentioned 
(besides  the  avoiding  of  the  divine  name  Jaliweh  down  to 
Exod.  vi.  2) — part  of  which  are  so  characteristic  and  unmis- 
takable that  almost  perfect  unanimity  has  gradually  been  reached 
in  this  particular  stratum  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua. 
One  of  the  most  notable  signs  is  ihe  style,  with  its  unfailing 
breadth,  its  fondness  for  exhaustive  details  and  "juristic 
formulating'^  (cf.  Gen.  i.  11  ff.,  16  if,,  xxvi.  and  xxviii.)  and 
-even  for  pure  schematism  (cf.  Gen.  v.  11,  x.  if ,,  Exod.  xxxviii. 
21  ff.,  Num.  i.  ii.  xxvi.  xxviii.  xxix.  xxxi.  26  ff.,  but,  above 
all,  chap.  vii.  12  ff.,  where  six  verses  are  twelve  times  repeated). 
Corresponding  to  the  preference  for  precise  measures  and 
numbers  is  the  endeavour  to  provide  the  most  precise  chrono- 
logical framework  possible.  Whilst  the  Jahwist  contents 
himself  with  such  general  statements  as  Gen.  xviii.  11, 
P   calculates   most   particularly   how    old   Abraham   was   at 


THE    priests'    code    AND    THE    LAW-BOOK    OF    EZRA.  100" 

the  Immigration  (xii.  4b);,  at  the  birtli  of  Ishmael  (xvi.  IG),  at 
the  institution  of  circumcision  (xvii.  1,  24),  at  the  birth  of 
Isaac  (xxi.  5),  and  at  his  death  (xxv.  7).  Elsewhere,  too, 
the  most  precise  chronological  data  all  belong  to  P. 

More  important  than  these  external  features  is  the  sharply 
marked  religious  standpoint  of  the  Priests'  Writing.  We  have 
already  spoken  of  the  elevated  idea  of  God  which  meets 
us  at  the  very  outset  in  the  cosmogony  :  "  He  said.  Let  there 
be  light :  and  there  was  light."  As  the  creative  omnipotence 
of  God  here  requires  neither  preparation  nor  medium  so 
elsewhere  His  revelations  are  made  simply  by  the  word. 
The  Jahwist  does  not  shrink  from  remarkably  human  repre- 
sentations of  God  (Gen.  iii.  8  if.,  xviii.  1  ff.,  xxxii.  24  ff.,  &c.)  : 
but  in  the  Priests'  Writing  the  appearance  of  God  on  extra- 
ordinary occasions  is  only  indicated  as  it  were  from  afar 
(Gen.  xvii.  22,  xxxv.  9,  13).  At  Sinai  the  "Glory  of  Jahweh'' 
(i.e.,  His  Kevealing  Appearance,  which,  however,  only  displays 
as  it  were  a  part  or  reflection  of  His  complete  personality) 
is  veiled  in  a  cloud  (cf.  Exod.  xvi.  10,  and  especially  Num.  ix. 
15  fF.).  All  closer  description  is  carefully  avoided,  and  only 
the  comparison  of  Jahweh's  glory  with  consuming  fire  is 
ventured  on  (Exod.  xxiv.  17).  Compare  with  this  JE's  account, 
xxiv.  9  ff.,  of  Moses,  Aaron,  Nadab,  Abihu  and  the  seventy 
elders  beholding  the  God  of  Israel ! 

The  extent  to  which  the  figures  of  the  prima3val  history 
were  already  surrounded,  in  the  view  of  the  Priests'  Writing, 
with  a  kind  of  saintly  aureole  is  seen  from  the  obviously 
intentional  omission  of  all  the  traits  which  seemed  to  lower 
the  dignity  of  the  patriarchs.  Jacob  does  not  flee  before 
the  well-deserved  vengeance  of  Esau,  but  is  despatched 
to  Mesopotamia  by  Isaac  in  perfect  peace  (Gen.  xxviii.  1  ff".). 
Thus  his  fraud  (chap,  xxvii.)  is  not  presupposed,  and  the- 
brothers,  therefore,  dwell  peaceably  together  after  Jacob's 
return,  and  separate  in  friendly  fashion,  merely  because  their 
stock  of  cattle  is  so  great  (xxxvi.  G  ff.). 

As  to  the  far  weightiest  portion  of  the  Priests'  Writing,, 
the  laws,   everything  holds    good  whicli    we  have  remarked 


110  5    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

above  concerning  tlie  character  of  the  Law  of  Holiness  as  the 
first  comprehensive  realization  of  EzekieFs  visions.  Ezekiel's 
fundamental  ideas  are  now  carried  out  to  their  farthest  con- 
sequences, and  the  legislation  is  expanded  accordingly.  It  thus 
became  possible  for  theories  to  be  propounded — ;just  for  the 
sake  of  consistency — which  simply  could  not  be  carried  out  {e.g., 
the  celebration  of  the  so-called  Year  of  Jubilee,  Lev.  xxv.),  so 
that,  as  Jewish  tradition  admits,  the  attempt  was  never  made. 
The  fundamental  ideas  themselves,  which  regulate  every 
detail  of  the  cultus  and  of  civil  life,  are  exceedingly  simple. 
Strictly  speaking,  the  entire  ceremonial  law  aims  at  only  one 
thinsr,  that  the  citizen  of  the  Divine  commonwealth  should 
testify  by  many  actions  his  recognition  of  Jahweli  as  the  Lord 
of  all  space,  all  time,  all  property,  and  all  life.  Hence  all  these 
should  be  hallowed  to  Him  wholly  and  for  ever,  i.e.,  appro- 
priated to  His  sole  use  as  His  inviolable  property.  This  being 
impossible,  God  contents  Himself  with  the  selection  of  a  portion 
of  space,  time,  &c.,  for  absolute  hallowing.  Thus  the  theory 
is  that  all  the  land  is  Jahweh's  property,  but  only  one  place, 
the  tent  of  revelation  with  the  holy  ark,  is  absolutely  holy, 
and,  therefore,  alone  can  serve  as  the  spot  where  God  is 
to  be  worshipped.  This  assumption  is  so  seriously  made  that 
no  kind  of  cultus  seems  conceivable  in  the  whole  period  prior 
to  the  erection  of  the  tent  of  revelation  and  the  altar  of  burnt 
offerinsf.  The  Priests'  Writino^  knows  of  no  altars  or  sacri- 
fices  in  the  patriarchal  age,  and,  therefore,  of  no  distinction 
between  clean,  i.e.,  sacrificial,  and  unclean  animals  in  Noah's 
ark  (Gen.  vii.  14  ff. ;  the  Jahwist,  vii.  2,  is  different).  On  the 
other  hand,  when  the  law  is  given  at  Sinai,  the  first  thing  for 
which  provision  is  made  (Exod.  xxv.  8  ff.)  is  the  construction 
of  the  holy  place  because  it  is  the  indispensable  preliminary 
to  the  worship.  We  have  already  laid  stress  on  the  fact  that 
God's  abode  in  this  sanctuary  was  not  conceived  of  as  the 
indwelling  of  His  entire  personality.  But  He  has  determined 
to  reveal  Himself  henceforward,  and  to  receive  the  sacrifices 
and  offerings  of  Israel  only  at  this  place  (which  is  naturally 
to  be  considered  the  prefiguration  of  the  temple).    The  so-called 


Ill 

Kapporeth,  tlie  cover  of  the  holy  ark  in  the  Holy  of  Holies, 
forms  the  most  sacred  centre  (Exod.  xxv.  22).  Connected  with 
it  are  the  holy  place  and  the  court,  gradually  diminishing 
in  their  degrees  of  holiness.  The  Holy  of  Holies  is  to  be  entered 
by  none  but  the  high  priest  (at  least  so  it  seems  according 
to  Lev.  xvi. ;  a  somewhat  freer  theory  is  found  at  Num.  xviii.  7), 
and  that  only  on  the  great  Day  of  Atonement ;  the  holy  place 
only  by  the  priests  (Num.  iv.  5,  xv.  20,  xviii.  3),  not  the 
Levites. 

The  chief  point  in  the  theory  of  the  liohj  time  seems  to  be 
that  rest  days  are  to  be  set  apart  on  which  the  people  are  not 
to  encroach  for  their  own  advantage  on  the  time  hallowed  to 
Jahweh.  This  applies  to  the  weekly  festival,  the  Sabbath,  as 
well  as  the  other  feast  days.  And,  indeed,  the  holier  the  day 
the  more  strictly  is  all  work  forbidden ;  on  ordinary  feast  days 
nothing  but  their  daily  work  (Lev.  xxiii,  7  f.,  21,  24,  &c.),  on  the 
Sabbath  and  on  the  great  Day  of  Atonement,  work  of  every 
kind  (verses  3,  30) .  In  all  this  two  things  are  noteworthy ; 
the  increased  number  of  feasts  and  the  tracing  almost  all  of 
them  to  religious  (theocratic)  motives.  The  older  laws  are 
only  aware  of  the  duty  of  celebrating  a  feast  to  Jahweh  three 
times  a  year  (Exod.  xxiii.  14,  xxxiv.  23,  Deut.  xvi.),  and  these 
three  are  Nature  Festivals,  above  all.  Harvest  Festivals.  The 
seven  days'  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  in  the  month  of  Ears 
originally  was  regarded  as  the  beginning  of  the  harvest, 
according  to  Deut.  xvi.  9,  (cf.  also  Lev.  xxiii.  10);  the  first 
day  of  the  seven  is  the  Passover,  originally  the  Feast  of  the 
Presentation  of  the  firstlings  of  cattle.  The  Feast  of  Weeks 
celebrates  the  prosperous  conclusion  of  the  corn-harvest ;  the 
Autumnal  Feast  (ancientl}^  ''  The  Feast,^'  absolutely),  that  of 
fruit  and  wine.  In  the  Priests'  Law  (Lev.  xxiii..  Num.  xxviii. 
29)  the  Passover  precedes  the  seven  days  of  Unleavened  Bread 
as  an  independent  feast,  and,  together  with  them,  is  regarded 
as  commemorating  nothing  but  the  Divine  protection 
experienced  by  the  people  when  they  went  out  of  Egypt. 
The  autumn  festival  also  lasts  eight  days,  and  is  devoted  to 
the  memory  of  the  dwelling  in  booths   during  the  journey 


112  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

througli  the  Desert.  The  only  one  which  has  no  theocratic 
foundation  in  the  Old  Testament  is  the  Feast  of  Weeks 
(Pentecost) .  There  are  the  following  new  feasts  :  the  Day  of 
Memorial-Blowing  on  the  first  of  the  seventh  month,  and  the 
great  Day  of  Atonement  on  the  tenth  of  the  same  month. 
The  old  feasts,  like  these  new  ones,  are  now  precisely  dated 
(Passover  on  the  14th  of  the  first  month  ;  Tabernacles, 
from  the  15th  to  the  22nd  of  the  seventh  month),  whereas  in 
earlier  times  each  was  proclaimed  according  to  the  state  of 
the  harvest.  On  seven  of  these  feast-days  (Lev.  xxiii.  3  also 
prescribes  it  for  all  Sabbaths)  there  was  to  be  a  "  holy 
assembly  ^'  of  the  whole  people  at  the  sanctuary — a  require- 
ment which  could  only  be  addressed  to  those  who,  like  the- 
post-exilic  Jewish  community,  dwelt  near  the  one  sanctuary. 
Finally,  the  finishing  touches  given  to  the  Sabbath  celebra- 
tion in  Lev.  xxv.  are  of  special  interest.  Exod.  xxi.  2  fF.,  is 
also  acquainted  with  the  freeing  of  Hebrew  slaves  at  the  end 
of  six  years'  service,  and  xxiii.  11  with  the  abandonment  every 
seven  years  (consequently  not  of  all  fields  at  the  same  time) 
of  the  products  of  the  arable  land  to  the  poor  and  the  beasts. 
Dent.  XV.  commanded  that  every  seventh  year  should  be- 
celebrated  as  a  year  of  release  for  Hebrew  slaves  and  poor 
debtors.  In  the  Priests'  Writing  an  altogether  new  view- 
point emerges ;  the  Sabbatic  year  is  first  and  foremost 
a  Sabbath,  a  rest  time  which  the  land  itself  celebrates^ 
to  Jahweh.  The  fields  must  not  be  sown,  the  vine  not 
pruned,  the  spontaneous  growth  not  reaped.  The  ultimate- 
consequence  of  the  Sabbatic  idea  is  the  celebration  of  the  year 
of  Jobel  or  Jubilee  (Lev.  xxv.  8ff.),  every  fiftieth  year,  i.r.y. 
at  the  expiration  of  seven  weeks  of  Sabbatic  years.  The- 
Jubilee  year  is  also  a  rest  for  the  ground  and  a  fixed  point, 
when  every  kind  of  alienated  property  returns  to  the  original 
possessor.  The  motive  for  this  peculiar  ordinance  is  clearly 
expressed  at  v.  23.  No  one  is  a  real  owner.  All  land  is 
simply  held  in  fief  from  Jahweh  ;  the  restoration  to  the  man 
to  whom  it  was  first  assigned  is  a  recognition  of  Jahweh's- 
suzerainty. 


THE    PKIESTS'    CODE    AND    THE    L.WV-BOOK    OF    EZRA.  113 

This  brings  ns  to  tlie  third  of  those  fundamental  principles 
of  the  Priests^  Writing.  Jahweli  is  the  real  Lord  of  all  the 
property  which  Israel  could  boast  of.  A  very  large  part  of 
the  precepts  relating  to  sacrifices  is  concerned  with  the 
recognition  of  this  fact.  The  older  laws  also  know  of  gifts  of 
firstlings,  and  presentations  of  sacrifices  to  Jahweh.  But 
jsome  of  these  gifts  are  very  trivial  (Deut.  xviii.  3,  xxvi.  2) ; 
and  in  part  to  be  consumed  by  the  offerer  and  his  family  at  the 
sanctuary  (as  the  so-called  tenths,  Deut.  xiv.  22  ff.,  and  the 
firstlings  of  cattle,  xv.  19  ff.).  The  Priests*  Code,  on  the  other 
hand,  prescribes  that  the  breast  and  the  right  shoulder  of  all 
peace  offerings,  the  whole  of  the  flesh  of  all  sin  and  trespass 
offerings,  all  the  firstlings  of  cattle,  and  the  first  fruits  of 
wheatv,  wine,  oil,  and  dough,  are  to  be  given  to  the  priests, 
besides  which  the  Levites  are  to  have  the  tenth  of  all  fruits  of 
the  ground  and  of  trees,  and,  according  to  Lev.  xxvii.  32, 
even  of  the  cattle.  Finally,  the  principle  that  a  portion  of 
all  property  must  be  set  aside  for  Jahweh  is  expanded  into 
the  theory  that  forty-eight  cities,  with  the  surrounding 
pastures^  are  to  be  assigned  to  the  priests  and  Levites 
(Num.  XXXV.,  Joshua  xxi.) — in  opposition  to  the  older 
principle  maintained  by  P  himself  at  Num.  xviii.  20,  xxvi.  62. 

At  this  point  we  may  mention  another  far-reaching 
difference  between  the  older  custom  and  that  of  the  Priests* 
Law  as  regards  the  sacrifices  and  offerings  to  Jahweh. 
According  to  the  older  idea  sacrifice  was  the  presentation  to 
the  Deity  of  enjoyable  food.  Nothing  therefore  could  be 
offered  except  what  serves  for  human  nourishment  (the  only 
additional  condition  being  that  the  gift  must  be  the  actual 
property  of  the  offerer).  Consequently  the  gladsome  meal  in 
praise  and  honour  of  the  Deity,  the  "  eating  and  drinking 
before  the  face  of  God,"  i.e.,  at  the  sanctuary,  was  the  principal 
thing.  But  in  the  Priests'  Writing  the  renunciation  of  one's 
property  comes  into  the  foreground.  The  old  sacrificial 
meals  were  regarded  by  it  as  offerings  of  secondary  rank ; 
the  burnt  offerings  appear  far  weightier  and  more  efficacious, 
and  the  sin  and  trespass  offerings  more  so  still.      The  flesh 

8 


114  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    rERIOD. 

of  tlie  latter  is  '''most  lioly'^  and  can  be  eaten  by  none  but 
the  priests  in  a  holy  place.  Perhaps  the  precise  discrimina- 
tion of  these  varieties  of  sacrifices  is  derived  from  an  earlier 
period:  but  we  have  no  reliable  proof  of  their  ruention  before 
the  Exile.  The  great  weight  laid  upon  them  is  a  striking 
evidence  of  the  gloomy  nature  of  the  post-exilic  cultus,  of  its 
pervasion  with  a  deep  penitence  and  desire  for  propitiation. 
The  importance  ascribed  to  an  orderly  service,  carried  out 
with  painful  observance  of  the  ritual,  comes  out  in  another 
circumstance.  The  pre-exihc  time  was  familiar  with  daily 
sacrifices  offered  by  the  king  (2  Kings  xvi.  15),  but  it  is  not 
till  Ezekiel  (xlv.  17,  22^  &c.),  that  the  daily  and  festival 
sacrifices  are  also  offered  on  behalf  of  the  community.  In  the 
Priests^  Law  (cf.  the  table  of  sacrifices.  Num.  xxviii.  29)  the 
official  sacrifices,  i.e.,  those  offered  by  the  priests  in  the  name 
of  the  community,  are  so  multiplied  that  113  young  bullocks, 
1086  lambs,  36  rams,  and  29  goats,  are  required  yearl}^,  each 
with  its  accompaniment  of  a  fixed  measure  of  meal  and  drink 
offering. 

All  iiersonS)  as  well  as  space,  time,  and  property  are  conse- 
crated to  Jahweh.  This  fourth  fundamental  thought  finds 
expression  partly  in  the  consecration  of  the  first-born,  accord- 
ing to  ancient  tradition,  partly  in  the  imposition  of  the  poll-tax 
(represented  at  Exod.  xxx.  13  ff.  as  a  payment  by  which  those 
who  had  become  forfeited  to  Jahweh  might  be  redeemed), 
finally  in  the  directions  concerning  the  service  of  the  priests 
and  Levites.  In  pre-exilic  times  priestly  functions  were  not 
confined  to  a  distinct  class.  Every  head  of  a  household  could 
and  was  accustomed  to  sacrifice ;  we  are  unhesitatingly  told 
that  David  and  Solomon  (2  Sam.  vi.  18,  1  Kings  viii.  55)  even 
blessed  the  people.  The  professional  priest  at  the  sanctuaries 
was  chiefly  needed  to  obtain  oracles  by  means  of  the  holy  lot. 
But  even  at  the  greatest  sanctuaries,  such  as  Jerusalem,  there 
was  no  "  high  priest ''  such  as  the  Priests^  Writing  requires, 
but  only  a  chief  priest  (two,  under  David  and  vSolomon).  He 
was  one  of  the  king^s  superior  officials,  and  must  strictl}^  carry 
out  his  orders   (2  Kings  xvi.  10  ff.)  :  like  any  other  official  he 


THE    priests'    code    AND    THE    LAW-BOOK    OF    EZRA.  115 

can  be  disDiissed  (1  Kings  ii.  20).  We  learn  too  from  sucli 
passages  as  Judges  xvii.  5,  2  Sam.  viii.  18,  xx.  26,  tliat  tlie 
priesthood  was  in  no  way  limited  to  those  who  were  descended 
from  Levi,  althoug-h  according  to  Judges  xvii.  13,  a  Levite 
was  preferred  to  any  other  priest.  We  have  already  spoken 
on  p.  90  of  the  manner  in  which  the  legitimate  priesthood 
was  afterwards  restricted  by  Deuteronomy  to  Jerusalem,  and 
the  foundation  laid  by  Ezek.  xliv.  for  the  distinction  between 
priests  (sons  of  Zadok)  and  Lovites  (formerly  priests  of  the 
high  places).  In  the  Priests'  Writing  this  distinction  is 
thoroughly  carried  out  and  incorporated  into  a  well-devised 
system,  in  which  post-exilic  circumstances  are  as  a  matter  of 
course  everywhere  implied.  The  following  are  the  main 
features  of  this  system. 

Theoretically  all  Israel  ought  to  perform  priestly  service. 
To  say  nothing,  however,  of  other  conditions,  the  requisite 
Levitical  purity  could  not  be  maintained  by  all,  and  Jahweh 
therefore  prescribed  a  substitute  in  the  form  of  the  '^  Sons  of 
Aaron, ^'  i.e.,  the  priesthood  hereditary  in  certain  definite 
families.  The  tracing  all  these  back  to  Aaron,  or  to  his  sons 
Eleazar  and  Ithamar,  was  evidently  intended  to  enlarge  the 
circle  of  the  ^'  Sons  of  Zadok. ^'  Reasons  which  we  cannot 
ascertain  must  have  made  the  recognition  of  some  non- 
Zadokites  inevitable.  As  the  Zadokites  were  derived  from 
Eleazar  so  were  these  others  from  Ithamar.  If  exacting 
demands  were  made  on  the  ordinary  priests  with  regard  to 
their  Levitical  purity,  much  more  were  they  on  their  head, 
the  high  priest  (also  a  hereditary  official) .  In  his  person  the 
priestly,  and  at  the  same  time  kingly,  people  finds  its  most 
peculiar  and  completest  embodiment.  Especially  is  this  so 
in  the  exuberant  symbolism  of  his  official  dress  (Exod.  xxviii. 
2  fF.).  The  blue  and  red  purple  of  which  his  robe  is  made,  and 
the  golden  diadem  on  his  mitre,  points  to  the  royal  dignity; 
the  priestly  character  of  the  people  is  shown  by  the  inscription 
on  the  diadem  (Holiness  to  Jahweh)  and  the  names  of  the 
twelve  tribes  engraved  in  precious  stones  and  worn  on  the 
shoulder-pieces    and    the    breastplate.      Were   it   necessary 


116  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

Num.  XXXV.  25  would  prove  that  all  tliis  declares  tlie  high. 
priest  to  be  the  sovereign  head  of  the  priestly  commonwealth 
in  a  manner  which  no  one  dreamed  of  for  a  royal  official  before 
the  Exile,  w^hich  never  occurred  even  to  Ezekiel.  The  rights 
of  the  avenger  of  blood  expired  at  the  death  of  the  high  priest. 
That  is  to  say,  a  definite  period  of  civil  life  terminates  with 
him,  as  elsewhere  with  the  death  of  the  prince. 

The  official  standing  of  the  Levites,  like  that  of  the  priests, 
flows  from  a  divine  arrangement  made  once  for  all.  The  only 
error  in  the  still  prevalent  view  is  that  it  takes  the  Levites  to 
be  priests  of  a  lower  rank,  because  they  (like  Moses  and 
Aaron)  were  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  thus  makes  them  to  be 
the  broad  basis  from  which  the  priesthood  proper  rises  with 
the  high  priest  at  the  summit.  But  this  is  not  the  meaning  of 
the  Priests'  Code.  According  to  it  they  are  a  gift  (Num.  iii. 
6,  viii.  16  ff.  &c.)  presented  by  the  people  to  the  priests  to  wait 
upon  them  :  hence,  when  they  are  consecrated  they  are  to  be 
presented,  according  to  Num.  viii.  9  ff.,  quite  in  the  fashion  of 
a  so-called  'Svave-offering ''  to  Jahweh  (and  to  the  priests  in 
His  stead).  The}^,  therefore,  perform  all  the  inferior  duties  at 
the  sanctuary  which  should  properly  be  done  by  the  people 
itself,  or  rather  by  the  first-born.  This  idea,  that  every 
individual  Levite  performs  his  service  as  representing  one  of 
the  first-born,  finds  striking  expression  at  Num.  iii.  41  if. 
There  are  only  22,000  Levites  to  represent  22,273  first-born. 
Two  hundred  and  seventy-three  therefore  must  be  specially 
'^redeemed.'*  Consecration  qualifies  the  Levites,  not  to 
oflaciate  in  the  sanctuary,  but  to  surround  it,  and  thus,  as 
a  sort  of  protecting  wall,  to  secure  the  profane  multitude 
against  the  destroying  holiness  of  Jahweh  (Num.  i.  53,  &c.). 

If  we  now  collect  from  all  this  the  sum  of  what  is  to  be  said 
concerning  the  fundamental  ideas  of  the  Priests'  Writing  and 
their  execution  it  will,  without  contradiction,  be  briefly  as 
follows.  The  idea  that  the  Priests'  Code  was  extant  before 
the  Exile  could  only  be  maintained  on  the  assumption  that  no 
man  knew  of  it,  not  even  the  spiritual  leaders  of  the  people, 
such  as  the  priests  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.     This  would  be  an 


THE    priests'    code    AND    THE    LAW-BOOK    OF    EZRA.  117 

enormous  assumption  ;  not  less  so  is  the  other^  that  so  deep 
and  refined  a  symbolism,  so  cxliaustive  a  carrying  out  of  fun- 
damental religious  ideas  had  begun  to  bo  codified  and  then 
remained  totally  unregarded.  Pray  what  could  induce  the 
sons  of  Zadok  at  Jerusalem  not  to  introduce  this  law  instead  of 
the  simple  prophetic  law  in  Deuteronomy  ?  And  what  could 
move  Ezekiel  carefully  to  lay  a  new  foundation  when  the  whole 
building  was  there  in  most  desirable  form  and  extent  ?  On 
the  oilier  hand  everything  appears  in  the  best  order  and  self- 
evident  when  we  think  of  the  codifications  as  arising  in  this 
order :  Deuteronomy,  Ezek.  xl.-xlviii._,  Law  of  Holiness, 
Priests'  Code.  The  latter,  though,  as  we  shall  see  below,  not 
in  its  present  form,  obtained  official  validity  through  Ezra,  and 
afterwards  continued  to  be  the  standard  of  ritual  and  life  and 
of  the  entire  view  of  history  among-st  the  Jews.  In  the 
gradually  written  expositions  of  Israel's  laws  of  life  it  was  the 
last  word. 

Only  one  possible  question  remains,  and  that  refers  to 
a  leading  point,  the  position  of  the  Levites.  According  to 
Ezekiel  xliv.  10  If.  the  sentence  which  reduced  the  former 
priests  of  the  high  places  to  the  inferior  services  of  the 
sanctuary  was  a  deserved  punishment:  according  to  the 
Priests'  Code  the  service  of  the  Levites,  by  virtue  of  a  Divine 
appointment,  is  an  honourable  office  of  which  they  may  be 
proud.  How  can  these  two  views  be  reconciled  ?  The  history 
of  the  post-exilic  period  furnishes  the  answer.  The  non- 
Zadokites  were  so  little  inclined  to  take  up  the  role  assigned 
them  by  Ezekiel  that,  e.g.,  not  a  single  Levite  was  found  at 
first  amongst  those  who  returned  with  Ezra  in  458,  and  thirty- 
eight  were  only  induced  to  accompany  him  by  the  special 
measures  which  he  took  (viii.  15  If.).  Again,  in  the  narrative 
of  the  revolt  of  the  Korahites,  now  blended  in  Num.  xvi.  with 
an  older  account  of  a  political  revolt  of  the  Reubenites,  we 
have  a  clear  reflection  of  the  vehement  struggles  (subsequently 
buried  in  deep  silence)  occasioned  by  the  dislike  the  non- 
Zadokites  felt  to  the  manner  in  which  they  were  employed 
in  relio'ious  services.      From   this  it  is   self-evident  that  the 


118 

priestly  circles  were  at  least  compelled  to  find  another  ground 
for  the  position  of  the  Levites. 

The  extent  of  the  original  Priests'  Code,  drawn  up  in  Babylon 
somewhere  about  500,  is  uncertain.  But  it  has  at  all  events  been 
shown  to  be  very  probable  that  it  contained  a  law  of  worship 
in  the  shape  of  a  history  of  the  holy  ordinances — the  prelimin- 
ary history  also  being  included.  The  more  detailed  theories, 
such  as  the  so-called  Law  of  Sacrifice,  Lev.  i.-vii.  (in  which 
several  strata  are  clearly  distinguishable),  to  say  nothing  of 
!Num.  XXXV.  and  Joshua  xxi.,  may  therefore  belong  to  a  more 
and  a  most  recent  stratum. 

The  delay until444  in  introducing  the  Priests' Lawis  probably 
to  be  explained  simply  by  the  above-mentioned  difficulty  of 
the  Levile  question.  It  is  extremely  astonishing  that  Ezra, 
who,  according  to  Ezra  vii.  14,  brought  the  law  of  God 
{i.e.f  the  form  published  in  444)  with  him  from  Bablkion  in 
458^  delayed  publishing  it  for  fourteen  years.  Obviously  the  fit 
time  did  not  seem  to  have  come  till  Nehemiah  was  installed  as 
Governor.  In  the  highly  interesting  authentic  account  of  the 
introduction  of  the  new  law,  Neh.  viii.-x.,  two  things  are 
clearly  presupposed.  First  (viii.  1),  that  the  law-book  had 
hitherto  been  kept  by  Ezra  alone,  and  therefore  had  been 
brought  by  him  from  Babylon.  In  fact,  in  the  commendatory 
letter  which  Artaxerxes  I.  gave  to  Ezra,  the  latter  is  plainly 
described  as  ^^the  scribe,"  i.e.,  the  author  of  the  Law  of  the 
God  of  Heaven.  Secondly,  that  the  contents  were  till  then 
entirely  unknown  to  the  people.  Official  heralds  must  there- 
fore summon  the  people  to  observe  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
in  the  new  fashion  (viii.  14  ff.).  From  this  passage,  with  its 
appeal  to  Lev.  xxiii.  40,  we  also  learn  that  Ezra's  law-book 
contained  portions  of  the  Law  of  Holiness.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  clearly  cannot  have  been  identical  w^ith  the  whole  of 
our  present  Priest's  Writing,  because  Ezra  could  not  in  one 
breath  have  given  the  heterogeneous  directions  which  we  find 
in  the  various  strata  of  the  Priests'  Code  (cf.,  e.g.,  Num.  iv.  3 
with  viii.  24;  Exod.  xxix.  7,  Lev.  viii.  12,  xxi.  10,  in  which 
passages  Aaron  alone   is  anointed,  with  Exod.  xxviii.   41  and 


"CLOSE    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH    AND    OP    THE    HISTORICAL    WORK.     119 

Num.  iii.  8  :  at  Ezra  ix.  1  it  seems  to  be  assumed  that  in  the 
-evening  only  a  meal-offering  is  to  be  brought,  whereas  at 
Exod.  xxix.  41,  &c.,  a  lamb  is  required).  This  shows  that  the 
earlier  view  of  Ezra's  law-book  as  identical  with  the  whole  of 
our  Pentateuch  is  utterly  untenable.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
easy  to  understand  that,  when  a  priestly  law-book  in  EzekiePs 
spirit  had  been  observed  for  some  decades,  the  work  would 
be  undertaken  of  uniting  everything  extant  into  one  great 
corpus.  But  in  doing  this  they  were  not  content  to  blend 
Ezra's  law-book  with  JED  (see  above,  p.  94).  All  the  codes 
were  now  adopted  which  had  arisen  in  the  priestly  circles 
before  and  after  Ezra,*  partly  as  pendants  to  previously 
adopted  sections  {e.g.,  Exod.  xxxv.-xl.  added  to  Exod.  xxv.- 
xxxi.),  partly  as  expansions  of  the  fundamental  thoughts.  On  the 
whole  the  redactor  treated  the  older  corpus  (JED)  with  great 
consideration.  He  allowed  its  phraseology  to  stand  even 
Avhere  it  contradicted  the  historical  account  and  the  theories 
of  the  Priests'  Writing.  Thenceforward  it  was  left  to  the 
Scribes  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulties  which  could  not  but  arise 
from  the  blending  of  such  manifold  parts,  all  regarded  as 
canonical.  Elsewhere  {e.g.,  in  the  Deluge  History,  Gen.  vi.  ff.) 
the  offence  was  removed  by  an  apt  interweaving  of  the  various 
accounts.  It  is  but  seldom  that  the  redactor  seems  to  have 
resorted  to  the  extreme  measure,  the  omission  of  divero-ent 
accounts.  This  was  certainly  the  case  at  Exod.  xxxiii.  6,  where 
J!E"s  account  of  the  making  of  the  Tent  of  Revelation  could 
not  possibly  be  retained  in  the  midst  of  the  two  great  sections 
of  the  Priests'  Writing  which  were  devoted  to  the  same 
subject.  But  we  have  no  means  of  knowing  how  the  corpus, 
finally  completed — probably  before  the  close  of  the  fifth 
century — was  proclaimed  canonical  and  binding  in  all  parts. 
One  thing  only  is  beyond  doubt  :  the  canonization  extended 
at  first  to  the  Pentateuch  alone,  excluding  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
although  in  this  book  also  the  blending  of  P  with  JED  must 

*  The  remarkable  chapter,  Gen.  xiv.,  which  seems  to  have  been  taken  from 
a  Midrash  on  the  Patriarchal  History,  is  also  probably  one  of  the  additions  due 
to  the  final  redactor. 


120  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

have  been  contemporaneous  with  the  final  redaction  of  the 
Five  Books  of  Moses.  For  the  Samaritans  recognize  the 
Pentateuch  alone  as  a  sacred  book;  hence,  at  the  time  when 
they  received  this  from  the  Jews,  the  Book  of  Joshua  must 
already  have  been  reckoned  in  the  second  division  of  the 
sacred  books.  But  this  distinction  between  Law  and  Prophets 
stands  in  connection  with  the  final  redaction  of  the  whole 
corpus,  Gen. — 2  Kings  xxv.*  It  has  left  untouched  the 
phraseology  of  the  Deuteronomistic  redaction  (see  above,  p.  94  f.) 
almost  everywhere  in  the  historical  books,  from  Joshua  i. 
downw^ards,  just  as  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  redactor  (whom 
we  designate  B  in  Joshua,  Judges,  and  the  Books  of  Samuel) 
contented  himself  generally  with  inserting  single  verses.  So- 
at  Judges  iii.  1-3,  vi.  7  ff . ;  seldom  in  the  Books  of  Samuel 
(but  cf.  the  thoroughly  characteristic  examples  1  Sam.  vi.  15, 
2  Sam.  XV.  24).  Some  of  these  additions  w^ere  religious 
verdicts,  some  chronological  data  or  explanatory  observations, 
sometimes  they  reconcile  the  contradictions  between  the 
various  strata.  Yet  independent  additions  are  not  quite 
lacking,  which  must  have  been  borrowed  from  popular 
tradition  (thus  probably  at  1  Sam.  xix.  18  ff.)  or  from  later, 
edifying  writings.  1  Sam.  xvi.  belongs  to  the  examples  of 
the  latter  class,  and,  especially,  that  recasting  of  an  older 
model  in  the  spirit  of  the  Priests^  Writing  which  is  found  in 
Judges  XX.  f.  The  additions  made  by  the  final  redactor  or 
redactors  in  the  Books  of  Kings  are  designated  Z  in  the 
*^  Survey. ^^  In  such  instances  as  1  K.  viii.  4b,  they  are  unmis- 
takable,  and  not  less  so  in  sections  like  1  K.  xii.  21  ff.,  and  33  fP. 
(cf.  2  K.  xxiii.  16  ff.),  or  2  K.  i.  9  ff.,  which  bear  throughout 
the  stamp  of  the  Midrash  (see  below,  on  the  Chronicles). 

*  As  Meyer,  Bie  EnUtelnniij  dci<  Judenth.  (Halle,  1896),p.216ff.,  especially  has 
shown,  we  are  not  to  conceive  of  the  process  as  one  in  which  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
was  separated  from  a  previously  existing  Hexateuch,  an  independent  literary 
work.  The  separation  was  effected  by  means  of  a  deep  cleft  in  the  historical 
tmited  work  (from  Gen.— 2  Kings  xxv.)  after  the  account  of  the  death  of  Moses. 


THE  WORK  OF  THE  CHRONICLER.  121 


3.  The  Work  of  the  Chronicler  (Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
Chronicles). 

The  great  work  whicli  arose  from  the  efforts  we  have  been 
describing  set  forth  the  course  of  history  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world  to  the  release  of  Jehoiachin  (561  B.C.).  Hence 
a  work  was  still  needed  to  tell  of  the  re-establishment  of 
the  Jewish  Commonwealth,  and  especially  of  the  reforms 
made  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  on  the  basis  of  the  priestly  law- 
book. In  the  course  of  the  fifth  century  this  need  was  met 
by  various  monographs,  which  have  been  partially  preserved 
for  us  in  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  In  their  present 
form,  however,  these  latter  came  from  the  hand  of  the 
Chronicler,  and  originally  formed  one  whole  with  the  two 
'^ Books  of  Chronicles^'  (literally,  "of  the  events  of  the  day,'' 
or  '^annals").  Indeed  the  Chronicler  most  probably  edited 
first  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  afterwards  sub- 
jected the  older  history  to  a  revision.  A  work  thus  arose 
which  described  continuously  the  whole  history  from  Adam 
to  Nehemiah's  second  residence  in  Jerusalem,  432.  This 
sequence.  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  is  supported  by  the 
fact  that  the  close  of  the  Chronicles,  which  breaks  off  in  the 
middle  of  a  sentence,  is  resumed  and  completed  in  the  opening 
of  the  Book  of  Ezra.  Probably  the  explanation  of  the  present 
arrangement  is  that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (in  whose  case  alone 
it  was  at  first  necessary)  had  already  been  received  into  the 
third  part  of  the  Canon  when  it  was  resolved  to  grant  the 
Chronicler  himself  a  place  there. 

We  shall  have  to  discuss  more  fully  below  the  spirit  in 
which  the  Chronicler  edited  the  available  sources,  or  in  some 
cases  himself  wrote  history.  Let  us  first  turn  to  the  mono- 
graphs on  which  he  has  drawn  in  the  Books  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah.^     Leaving  aside  several  isolated  documents,  these 

*  After  the  Chronicles  had  been  separated  from  them  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
were  still  counted  as  ore  book  by  the  Jews  (as  by  Joxephnu  c.  Apion  I.  viii.,  and 
in  the  Talmud):  Origen  and  the  Latin  Bible  called  them  Ezra  I.  and  11.     On 


122  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

■consist  of  an  Aramaic  source  from  tlie  middle  of  the  fifth 
century  {Qa  in  Ezra  iv.-vi.),  and  of  tlie  personal  Memoirs  of 
Ezra  and  [N'eliemiali  {E  and  N). 

As  to  all  these  sources,  it  must  be  remarked  that  the 
Chronicler  (respecting  his  own  production,  see  below)  evidently 
re-cast  them,  instead  of  alwaj^s  reproducing  their  phraseology, 
so  that  we  have  to  distinguish  in  the  ^'  Survey  ^^  between, 
Q,  Qa,  E,  N,  and  q,  qa,  e,  n.  Thus  at  the  outset,  Ezra  i.  2  fi\ 
the  phraseology  of  the  edict  of  Cyrus,  compared  with  the 
form  in  vi.  3  if.,  is  open  to  grave  suspicion.  This  is  also 
true  of  certain  terms  in  the  letters  of  Tattenai,  Darius  and 
Artaxerxes  L,  chap.  v.  7  if.,  vi.  7  ff.,  vii.  12  if. ;  but  we 
gladly  admit  that  most  of  the  suspicions  against  these  have 
been  convincingly  removed  by  E.  Meyer  (''^Die  Entstehung 
des  Judenthums,^'  p.  41  if.).  According  to  Neh.  vii.  5,  the 
authentic  list  of  those  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel  to 
Joshua  comes  from  the  Memoirs  of  Nehemiah.  It  is  evident 
that  the  Chronicler  borrowed  it  from  that  source  (or,  still 
more  probably,  from  a  historical  work  in  which  Neh.  vii.  ff. 
had  been  adopted),  because  Neh.  vii.  73b,  a  half  verse  which 
really  forms  the  beginning  of  chap,  viii.,  is  the  continuation 
of  Ezra  iii.  1.  The  Aramaic  source  in  Ezra  iv.  8 — vi.  18,  and 
vii.  12-26,  shows  itself  well  informed;  but  the  Chronicler  has  . 
jDlaced  iv.  6-23  too  early.  For  v.  6  refers  to  an  event  in  the 
time  of  Xerxes  (485-465  B.C.),  and  v.  7  if.  to  the  prevention 
by  force  (cf.  v.  23  !)  of  the  fortification  of  Jerusalem  with  walls 
under  Artaxerxes  I.  (about  445,  since  Nehemiah,  according 
to  Neh.  i.  1,  heard  of  it  in  the  ninth  month  of  that  year). 
Not  till  V.  24  is  the  thread  of  v.  5  resumed. 

The  first  part  of  the  Book  of  Ezra  is  occupied  with  the 
events  of  538-516.  But  chaps,  vii.-xii.  relate  the  home-coming 
of  Ezra  and  a  second  band  of  exiles  in  the  year  458,  Ezra^s 
own  Memoirs  being  almost  exclusively  used.     These  Memoirs 

the  other  hand,  the  Greek  Bible  reckons  as  Ezra  I.  an  apocryphal  Greek  book 
^counted  as  Ezra  III.  in  the  Latin  Bible)  which  originated  in  the  last  century 
before  Christ.  The  so-called  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra  is  an  apocryphon,  probably 
from  the  time  of  Domitian,  and  is  preserved  almost  exclusively  in  translations. 


THE    WORK    OF    THE    CHRONICLER.  123 

sliow  tliemselves   an  excellent  source,  especially  where  tlieir 
phraseology  has  been  adhered  to  (Ezra  vii.  27-34,  chap,  ix.)  ; 
but  some  of  the  sources  (especially  Ezra  x.  and  Neh.  viii.-x.) 
which  have  passed  through  the  hand  of  the  Chronicler  or  his 
.authority  are  also  of  great  weight.     The  same  is  true  of  all 
parts  of  the  Memoirs  of  Nehemiah,  cupbearer  to  Artaxerxes  I., 
who  came  to  Jerusalem  in  445  as  the  king's  vicegerent,  and  by 
.swiftly  rebuilding  its  walls  secured  the  sorely  imperilled  city 
agaiust    further  assaults    from   its   hostile  neighbours.     This 
"  Narrative    of    Nehemiah,    son    of     Hachaliali,''    dealing    in 
Neh.    i.    1— vii.    5,    xi.    1,    2,  xii.  31  f.,   37-40  with   his    first 
residence  (445-433),  and  in  xiii.  4-31  with  the  second  (432), 
lies    before    us    in    its    original    phraseology,    and    strongly 
fascinates  us  by  its  unpretentious,  trustworthy  description  of 
•events,  and  its  manifestation  of  an  energetic  and,  at  the  same 
time,  truthful  and  pious  personality.     From  the  same  source, 
no    doubt,    came    xi.    4  ff.,  a  list    belonging    to    the    time    of 
Zerubbabel,    recognized    already    by    Evvald    as    the    original 
continuation  of  vii.  73b.      On  the  other  hand,  the  authentic 
list  in  chap.  xii.  must  have    been  mainly  derived    from  the 
''Book   of  Annals,''  mentioned  in  v.    23,  a   chronicle  which 
came  down  to  Johanan,  son    (according  to  v.  22,  grandson) 
of  Eliashib,  i.e.,  to  about  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century."^ 
Whether  the  Chronicler  {i.e.,  the  redactor  of  our  Books  of  Ezra 
and   Nehemiah)  took   the  narrative  of   Ezra  in  Neh.   viii.-x. 
from    this   source,  or  cot    his  extracts  as  a  whole    from    the 
Memoirs  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  must  remain  undecided. 

If  the  Chronicler,  up  to  this  point,  and  especially  in  the 
Book  of  Nehemiah,  limited  himself  to  isolated  additions  or 
unessential  alterations,  he  comes  out  in  Chronicles  t  itself  in 

*  It  will,  of  course,  be  different  if  we  think  of  v.  11  and  22  as  taken  from  the 
same  Chronicles.  In  that  case  the  mention  of  Jaddua,  the  high  priest,  and 
"Darius  the  Persian"  {i.e.,  Darius  III.)  will  compel  us,  with  Meyer  (Entstehung 
des  Judenthums,  p.  203  ff.^  to  come  down  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great, 
and  place  the  Biblical  Chronicles  considerably  later. 

t  Luther  adopted  this  name  from  Jerome  (Chronicon  totius  historic  divinfe). 
In  the  Greek  Bible  the  work  (for  Chronicles  originally  formed  only  one  book) 
is  called  Paraleipomena,  i.e.,  Things  Passed  Over:  the  Jews  call  it  "Annals." 


124  §    G.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

quite  another  sense  as  author.  In  the  first  part  (1  i.-ix.) 
the  history  to  David's  time  is  given  simply  in  the  form  of 
genealogies.  The  second  part  (1  x.-xxx.)  treats  of  the  history 
of  David;  the  third  (2  i.-ix.)  of  the  history  of  Solomon;  the 
fourth,  finally  (2  x.-xxxvi.  21),  of  the  history  of  Judah,  from 
the  division  of  the  Kingdom  to  the  Babylonian  Exile.  On 
the  conclusion  (xxxvi.  22  ff.,  which  is  not  completed  till 
Ezra  i.  3),  cf.  above,  p.  121. 

The  Chronicles  do  not  really  aim  at  giving  a  history  of 
Israel,  but  only  of  the  Davidic  dynasty,  with  special  reference 
to  the  temple  service.  Their  standpoint  is  that  of  the  strictest 
Levitism,  in  a  form  which  could  not  have  been  developed  till 
the  Priests'  Law  had  long  held  sway.  It  is  certain  that  the 
author  was  a  Levite,  and,  indeed,  a  temple-singer  or  musician, 
because  of  the  striking  prominence  which  he  gives  to  these. 
The  way  in  which  the  Chronicler  remodels  the  older  history 
in  the  spirit  of  Levitism  confronts  us  most  characteristically 
in  the  passages  where  we  can  accurately  check  his  description, 
by  reference  to  the  original  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  or  Kings, 
of  which  he  made  use.  We  are  chiefly  struck  there  by  the 
mechanical  way  in  which  the  fundamental  principle  is  carried 
out :  every  transgression  brings  on  speedy  punishment,  and 
every  calamity  is  a  punishment  for  transgression.  Cf.  1  x.  13  f., 
2  xii.  1  f.,  xvi.  12  (in  connection  with  v.  7  ff.) ;  xix.  2  If .  (as 
a  judgment  on  xviii.  2  tf.)  ;  xx.  35  If.  (in  direct  contradiction 
with  1  Kings  xxii.  49  f .) ;  xxiv.  2  (against  2  Kings  xii.  3), 
and  xxiv.  17  fF.,  as  the  cause  of  the  calamity  described  in  23  ff.; 
moreover,  xxv.  14  If.,  21;  xxvi.  16  ft'.;  xxxiii.  llff.  (where 
Manasseh's  sins  are  duly  punished,  but  at  the  same  time,  the 
continuance  of  his  reign  for  fifty-five  years  is  supposed  to  be 
explained  by  his  conversion).  According  to  xxxv.  2 1  if.,  Josiali 
fell  because  he  did  not  obey  God's  word,  which  had  come  to 
him  through  Pharaoh  Necho. 

Conversely,  when  there  is  indubitable  prosperity,  a  blameless 
piety  is  implied.  Hence  the  Chronicler  says  nothing  about 
David's  life  as  a  freebooter  or  as  Philistine  vassal,  nothing 
about  his  adultery  and  behaviour  towards  Uriah^  nothing  about 


THE  WORK  OF  THE  CHRONICLEE.  125 

the  wretclied  proceedings  in  David's  family,  notliing  about 
tlie  manner  of  Solomon's  accession,  described  in  1  Kings  i. 
All  this  is  doubtless  a  part  of  the  attempt  to  surround  David, 
the  real  originator  of  the  temple  building,  with  a  sort  of 
aureole.  The  only  transgression  ascribed  to  him  is  the  num- 
bering of  the  people,  1  xxi.  1,  to  which  Satan  had  incited 
him.  This  narrative  could  nofc  be  dispensed  with,  because 
the  consecration  by  David  of  what  afterwards  became  the 
temple  site  was  connected  with  it.  For  it  was  not  to  the 
idolater  Solomon  (although  nothing  is  said  of  his  idolatry 
itself),  but  to  David,  that  everything  was  to  be  ascribed 
which  was  requisite  for  the  preparation  of  the  temple  building 
and  the  arrangements  of  the  worship.  Not  fewer  than  seven 
chapters  (1  xxii.-xxvi.  28  f.)  are  devoted  to  the  account  of 
the  collection  of  building  materials  (amongst  which  the  gold 
and  silver  alone  were  worth  nearly  £450,000,000)  ^  and  the 
other  preparations  made  by  David.  Indeed,  the  model  of 
the  temple  and  of  all  its  vessels  was  given  to  Solomon  by 
David,  along  with  written  instructions  from  the  hand  of 
Jahweh. 

The  statements  as  to  the  number  of  their  warriors  corre- 
spond to  the  mechanical  view  which  makes  the  prosperity  and 
power  of  the  kings  stand  in  precise  relation  to  the  degree  of 
their  piety.  The  most  pious  kings  dispose  of  the  largest 
armies.  Thus  David  has  more  than  one  and  a  half  million 
warriors,  Jehoshaphat  more  than  a  million,  Asa  580,000, 
Abiah  400,000  (against  800,000  Israelites,  of  whom  half  a 
million  then  fall  in  battle),  Uzziah  307,500,  Amaziah  300,000, 
Rehoboam  only  180,000.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  these  armies 
serve  chiefly  for  pursuit,  not  for  fight :  cf.  the  striking 
examples,  2  xiii.  13  ff.,  xiv.  8ff.,  and  xx.  Iff.  Otherwise 
one  of  the  leading  principles  of  the   theocratic  theory  would 

*  [Canon  Rawlinson,  in  the  Speaker's  Bible,  thinks  the  numbers  given  in  the 
text  of  Chronicles  corrupt,  and  says,  "Estimated  according  to  the  value  of  the 
post-Babylonian  Hebrew  talent,  the  gold  here  spoken  of  would  be  worth  more 
than  one  thousand  millions  of  our  pounds  sterling,  while  the  silver  would  be 
worth  above  four  hundred  millions."     Tr.] 


126  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PEEIOD. 

have  been  violated^  namely^  that  all  trust  in  weapons  or  other 
external  means^  instead  of  in  the  immediate  interposition 
of  Jahweh,  is  absolutely  sinful.  The  instance  last  mentioned 
(2  Chron.  xx.),  a  complete  remodelling  of  2  Kings  iii.  in  the 
spirit  of  the  so-called  Midrash,  is  of  altogether  special  interest. 
The  precise  meaning  of  this  Hebrew  word  is  "  Investigation, 
Explanation/^  But  in  the  history  of  Jewish  literature  it  sig- 
nifies a  special  class  of  writings  which  contain  an  instructive 
and  edifying  exposition  of  older  (especially  historical)  books. 
The  Chronicler  himself  2  xxiv.  27,  appeals  to  a  "Midrash  on 
the  Book  of  King's.^^  In  view  of  the  above  examples,  it  is 
self-evident  that  a  Midrash  of  this  kind  cannot  possibly  pre- 
tend to  be  a  historical  narrative,  although  the  popular  view 
(and  with  it  the  Chronicler  himself)  may  have  confounded  the 
two  in  early  times. 

Furthermore,  it  seemed  quite  self-evident  to  the  Chronicler 
that  the  priestly  law  (as  the  law  of  Moses  !)  had  been  binding 
from  the  beginning,  and  therefore  was  to  be  regarded  as  the 
standard  in  judging  of  all  proceedings.  Where  the  facts 
would  not  fit  in  with  the  demands  of  the  Priests^  Code  they 
were  either  set  aside  or  corrected,  the  latter  often  in  a  very 
bold  fashion.  l^his  was  peculiarly  necessary  where  the 
privileges  of  the  priests  and  Levites  were  concerned,  especially 
as  the  pre-exilic  times,  according  to  our  explanation  above, 
knew  nothing  of  a  distinction  between  the  two  :  cf.  1  vi. 
18  ff.  (against  1  Sam.  i.  1),  xv.  2,  15,  xviii.  17  (against  2  Sam. 
viii.  18)  ;  2  vi.  13  (against  the  exemplar,  1  Kings  viii.  22, 
cited  in  v.  12!);  xi.  13  f.;  xiii.  9  if .,  and  quite  especially,. 
2  xxiii.  and  xxiv.  4  ff .  (against  2  Kings  xi.f.).  With  this 
assumption  that  the  Priests^  Law  was  in  force  it  also  corre- 
sponds that  not  only  Hezekiah,  but  also  other  pious  kings 
(thus  Asa  and  Jehoshaphat)  abolished  the  worship  at  the  high 
places  (which  to  the  Chronicler  was  sheer  idolatry  like  the 
Israelite  bull-worship).  Josiah  did  not  wait  till  his  eighteenth 
year,  but  took  the  reform  of  worship  in  hand  in  his  twelfth 
year  (i.e.,  as  soon  as  he  was  of  age!).  The  account  at 
2  xxxiv.  8  ft",  (taken  from  2  Kings  xxii.)  will  not  indeed  agree 


THE    WORK    OF    TIIK    CHRONICLER.  127 

witli  this.  But  the  Chronicler  gets  over  the  difficulty  to 
a  certain  extent  by  making  Shaphan,  v.  18  (against  2  Kings 
xxii.  10)  read  "out"  of  the  law-book.  For  the  law-book  is 
to  the  Chronicler  identical  with  the  whole  Pentateuch,  and 
Shaphan  could  not  have  read  this  through  without  a  break. 

No  wonder  then  that  very  hard  judgments  have  been 
pronounced  respecting  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Chronicles 
as  a  historical  source,  in  fact  that  everything  which  goes 
beyond  the  older  historical  books  has  been  declared  an  inven- 
tion. But  we  shall  come  nearer  the  truth  if  we  admit,  first, 
that  the  Chronicler  actually  took  part  of  his  material  from  the 
sources  he  so  freely  cites,  and,  secondly,  that  amongst  this 
material  have  been  preserved  all  kinds  of  noteworthy  and 
even  incontrovertible  traditions.  As  to  the  first  point,  it  is 
no  doubt  true  that  tendency -narratives  do  not  become  more 
credible  through  being  taken  from  any  exemplar  whatever. 
Yet  it  is  quite  a  different  thing  for  the  Chronicler  to  have 
taken  from  his  exemplars  in  good  faith  that  which  best 
corresponded  with  his  own  ideas  and  language  and  those  of 
his  surroundings,  from  what  it  would  have  been  if  he  had 
invented  narratives  and  then  appealed  to  imaginary  sources  in 
order  to  create  a  false  impression. 

The  character  of  the  material  enables  us  to  form  a  fairly 
confident  estimate  of  the  precise  character  of  the  sources 
which  the  Chronicler  adduces.  The  book  most  frequently 
cited  is  that  of  the  Kings  of  Judali  and  Israel  (or  the 
Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah ;  also,  abbreviated,  "  The  Kings 
of  Israel,"  or  "History  of  the  Kings  of  Israel"):  the 
latest  citation  relates  to  Jehoiakim.  This  work  cannot  be 
identical  with  our  Books  of  the  Kings,  but  probably  is  the 
"  Midrash  on  the  Book  of  the  Kings,"  adduced  under  this 
complete  title  at  2  xxiv.  27  (cf.  also  2  xiii.  2).  Hence 
it  must  have  been  a  compilation  in  which  (probably  not 
before  post-exilic  times)  the  material  of  our  Books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings,  and  perhaps  also  matters  from  the  so-called 
"great  King's  Book"  (see  above,  p.  70  fF.)  were  re-modelled 
for  the  purpose  of  edification.     Nor  is   it  less  probable  that 


128  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

the  freely  cited  monograplis  (1  xxvii.  24,  xxix.  29  ;  2  ix.  29, 
xii.  15,  xiii.  22,  xxxiii.  19),  perhaps  also  the  biography 
of  Uzziah  by  Isaiah  (2  xxvi.  22),  were  only  portions  of  that 
great  Midrashic  work,  especially  as  the  document  adduced  at 
2  XX.  34  is  expressly  said  to  be  "  inserted  in  the  book  of  the 
Kings  of  Israel. ^^  In  similar  fashion  Isa.  xxxvi.-xxxix.  and 
2  Kings  xviii.-xx.  are  referred  to  at  xxxii.  32. 

In  addition  to  the  Midrashic  matter  there  is  some  other 
documentary  material  (especially  in  the  genealogies,  chaps. 
i.-ix.),  not  preserved  elsewhere,  and  possibly  drawn  by  the 
Chronlpler  from  good  historical  tradition.  The  decision  as  to 
the  actual  value  of  these  notices  must  be  reserved  in  each 
case  for  critical  consideration.  Unfortunately,  though  the 
text  of  Chronicles  has  in  some  instances  been  better  pre- 
served than  that  of  its  exemplars,  it  is  on  the  whole  in  a  very 
damaged  condition. 

Finally,  with  regard  to  the  date  when  the  Chronicles  (with 
our  present  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  ;  see  above,  p.  121) 
were  composed,  1  xxix.  7,  where  a  computation  referring  to 
the  Davidic  period  is  made  in  Persian  darics,  would  at  once 
bring  us  to  a  ver}^  late  period.  Such  an  anachronism  was 
not  possible  till  that  coinage  had  been  current  from  time 
immemorial.  The  description  of  Darius  Codomaunus  as 
^'  Darius  the  Persian  ^'  (Neh.  xii.  22)  also  brings  us  down 
to  the  Greek  ]3eriod.  With  this  it  agrees  that  the  high 
priest  Jaddua,  mentioned  at  Neh.  xii.  22,  is  said  by  Josephus 
(Antiqq.  XI.,  vii.  8)  to  have  been  in  office  under  Alexander 
the  Great.  It  depends  chiefly  on  the  textual  criticism  of 
1  Chron.  iii.  19  ff.  whether  we  must  descend  still  later 
(according  to  Kuenen,  even  into  the  last  quarter  of  the 
third  century).  If  the  original  text  really  knew  of  eleven 
generations  after  Zerubbabel  the  earliest  date  for  the 
Chronicler  must  be  about  250  B.C.  But  another  interpreta- 
tion of  1  Chron.  iii.  19  ff.  finds  only  Q)-l  members  mentioned 
after  Zerubbabel,  and  thus  leads  to  the  dating  of  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  Chronicles  about  300  B.C. 


THE    BOOK    OF    RUTH.  129 


4.  The  Book  of  Euth. — The  Book  of  Esther. 

The  last  products  of  Hebrew  historiography  whicli  remain 
to  be  mentioned  reflect  once  more  the  two  main  tendencies  of 
Hebrew  literature,  the  booklet  of  Euth  the  prophetic,  the 
Book  of  Esther  the  specifically  Jewish-Levitical. 

The  Book  of  Euth,  designated  by  a  Goethe  as  "  the  loveliest 
little  epic  and  idyllic  whole  which  has  come  down  to  us/' 
cannot  have  been  written  till  post-exilic  times,  as  various 
traces  show.  Apart  from  certain  linguistic  signs  of  the 
Persian  Age  which  do  not  indeed  occur  in  the  narrative  but  in 
the  speeches  of  the  actors,  chap.  iv.  7  especially  proves  that 
a  considerable  interval  must  have  elapsed  since  Deut.  xxv.  9  ; 
for  the  narrator  has  to  explain,  as  practised  in  Israel  "in 
former  time,''  a  custom  which  in  Deuteronomy  is  assumed  to 
be  universally  known.  Moreover  tbe  origin  of  the  booklet  is 
well  explained  by  the  proceedings  after  Ezra's  return  (458). 
The  merciless  strictness  with  which  Ezra  (chap.  ix.  1  ff.) 
enforced  the  banishment  of  all  foreign  wives  evoked,  in  the 
families  concerned,  many  a  vigorous  protest,  which  eventually 
proved  most  momentous  to  Jerusalem  (see  below,  p.  195). 
And  thus  our  idyll — perhaps  on  the  ground  of  very  intimate 
acquaintance  with  another  Euth  ! — probably  aims  at  teaching 
the  zealots  that  all  foreign  women  do  not  lie  under  the  same 
condemnation,  but  that  there  are  those  amongst  them  who  are 
worthy  of  the  highest  praise  for  their  true  devotion  to  the  God 
of  Israel  and  to  the  members  of  His  people.  Euth,  the 
ancestress  of  the  Davidic  house,  is  proof  enough  of  this. 

If  this  is  the  precise  tendency  of  the  little  book  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  narrator  could  appeal  to  actual  tradition  in 
support  of  his  main  point,  the  descent  of  David  from  Euth. 
The  mention  of  Obed,  iv.  17,  is  also  in  favour  of  this.  But  it 
cannot  be  decided  whether  this  was  a  strictly  historical  tradi- 
tion or  rested  only  on  a  Midrash  (on  1  Sam.  xxii.  3).  In  any 
case  it  cannot  be  denied  that  free  inventiveness  was  at  work  in 

9 


130  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

the  names  of  Elimelecli's  early-lost  sons  :  Mahlon  ("Sickness") 
and  Chilion  (^^  Vanishing").  But  the  booklet's  historical 
value  does  not  consist  for  us  in  its  acquaintance  with 
Elimelech's  sons  or  with  the  progenitors  and  grandfather  of 
David^  but  in  its  remarkable  testimony  to  the  meaning  of 
"  Religion  in  life/^  in  Ezra's  time,  notwithstanding  all 
Levitism.  For  if  even  the  whole  story  were  to  be  considered 
didactic  poetry  its  colours  are  obviously  taken  from  life,  and 
the  poem  would  thus  be  an  honourable  monument  of  the 
religion  which  could  bring  to  perfection  in  the  true  Israelites 
such  fruits,  in  the  shape  of  a  heartfelt  piety  and  a  self- 
sacrificing  disposition. 

Quite  another  spirit  breathes  upon  us  from  the  Book  of 
Esther,  the  festival-roll  of  the  Feast  of  Purim.  We  have  no 
means  of  judging  whether  it  is  founded  on  any  historical 
nucleus.  What  we  read  in  it  is  a  sort  of  historical  romance, 
which  nowhere  bears  the  test  if  it  is  wished  to  regard  it  as 
a  historical  account.  Chap.  i.  would  suffice  for  a  convincing 
proof  of  this.  According  to  chap  ii.,  Mordecai,  who  had  been 
carried  captive  under  Jehoiachin  (597),  lived  with  his  niece  under 
Achashverosh,  i.e.,  Xerxes,  about  480.  It  is  still  less  wonder- 
ful that  Haman,  chap,  iii.,  instead  of  having  Mordecai  executed 
without  delay,  resolves  to  destroy  all  the  Jews,  and  casts  lots 
in  the  first  month  for  all  the  eleven  other  months  to  ascertain 
the  fittest  day  for  the  slaughter,  than  that  immediately  there- 
upon (eleven  months  beforehand ! )  the  irrevocable  death- 
warrant  is  published  in  all  the  provinces.  And  so  the  story 
moves  marvellously  on,  the  interest  of  it  gradually  heightened 
in  most  skilful  fashion  throughout  chaps,  iv.-viii.,  till  the 
climax  is  reached  in  chap,  ix.,  where  the  massacre  of  more  than 
seventy-five  thousand  Persian  subjects  by  the  Jews  is  related, 
and  Esther  crowns  the  whole  by  obtaining  the  king's  consent 
to  a  second  day  of  slaughter. 

The  aim  of  the  book  is  clearly  stated  at  ix.  19  ff.  It  is  to 
explain  the  origin  of  the  Purim  Festival  in  the  month  Adar. 
But  the  statement  at  iii.  7  that  imr  (presumably  in  Persian)  is 
equivalent    to    '^lot^^    cannot    be    linguistically    established. 


THE    Boot:    OF    ESTHEE.  '  131 

besides  wliicli  it  was  long*  ago  *  shown  to  be  probable  tliat 
the  name  is  connected  with  the  Persian  Furdigan  Festival,  a 
Spring  and  New  Year's  Feast,  which  was  also  kept  in  memory 
of  the  dead,  and  on  which  the  Persians  still  send  to  each  other 
presents  and  sweets  (cf.  Esther  ix.  19).  As  has  ah^eady  been 
said,  it  cannot  be  ascertained  what  other  occasion  the  Jews 
had  to  celebrate  this  feast  and  to  what  extent  a  trace  of  this  is 
still  left  in  the  Book  of  Esther.  This  only  must  be  said :  the  book 
is  a  monument  of  the  specifically  Jewish  spirit,  as  that  spirit  was 
gradually  formed  under  the  pressure  of  foreign  rule  in  post- 
exilic  times.  This  spirit  is  self- evidently  not  an  irreligious 
one.  The  intentional  avoidance  of  the  Divine  name  (very  con- 
■spicuously  at  iv.  14)  is  evidently  due  to  the  scrupulous  dread 
of  its  being  profaned  amidst  the  licence  of  the  feast.  Yet  the 
feast  is  one  of  thanksgiving  for  Divine  protection  granted  to 
the  people  in  a  great  distress  in  response  to  a  three  days' fast. 
The  whole  of  it,  however,  expresses  such  national  arrogance 
and  such  hatred  of  other  nations  as  makes  it  easy  to  under- 
stand the  strong  objections  to  its  canonicity  which  have  been 
raised,  not  only  amongst  Christians,  but  even  amongst  the 
Jews  (who,  however,  in  later  times  have  treasured  this  book 
more  than  all  the  prophets  ! ).  We  shall  judge  rightly  in  the 
main  if  we  criticise  the  book  by  the  same  standard  as  the 
Book  of  Judith.  Both  are,  properly  speaking,  folk-tales,  a 
self-glorification  of  the  people,  fitted  thus  to  bring  temporary 
f  orgetfulness  of  the  misery  of  their  bondage.  But  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  mistaken  apologetic   zeal  which,  for  the  sake  of 

=■'  Cf.  especially  de  Lagarcle,  Purim  (Abhandlungen  der  Gottinger  Gesellsch. 
der  Wiss.,  1885),  who  held  thabtfurdiffa))  corresponds  to  the  Persian /(t»V{/Ynv////(/», 
the  New  Year  Festival  of  the  Magi  (originally  devoted  to  the  Expulsion  of  Death. 
On  the  other  hand  Zimmern  (ZAW,  1891,  p.  157  ff.)  traces  Purim  to  the  Baby- 
lonian i^uchnt,  i.e.,  Assembly  (of  the  gods  on  New  Year's  Day,  to  determine 
destinies).  Mordecai  may  remind  us  of  Marduk.  Finally,  according  to 
Jensen  (Zeitschr.  fiir  die  Kunde  des  Morgenlands,  1892,  p.  70 ;  cf.  also  Dunkel, 
Schopfung  und  Chaos,  p.  309  ft'.).  Haman  corresponds  to  the  Elaniite  god 
Humman,  Vashti  to  an  Elamite  goddess,  Esther  to  Istar.  [See  also  Wildeboer 
and  his  quotation  from  a  later  letter  of  Jensen's  in  the  new  Hand-Kommcntar, 
now  being  edited  by  Marti.     Tr.] 

9  * 


132  '  §    G.    THE    POST-EXILtC    PERIOD. 

Jewish  tradition,  will  concede  to  tlie  Book  of  Esther  equal 
worth  and  validity  with  the  sayings  of  an  Isaiah  or  Jeremiah, 
a  Christian  has  the  right  to  recall  the  Lord's  word  :  "  Know 
ye  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of  ?  '' 

We  cannot  venture  beyond  a  conjecture  as  to  when  it  was 
composed.  2  Mace.  xv.  36  assumes  that  the  day  of  Mordecai 
was  observed  in  the  period  about  160  B.C.  But  this  proves 
nothing,  seeing  that  the  Second  Book  of  the  Maccabees  can 
scarcely  have  appeared  before  the  Christian  era.  "With  this  it 
agrees  that  Jesus  Sirach  seems  not  to  have  known  the  Book 
of  Esther.  The  degree  of  aversion  from  other  nations  to  which 
the  book  bears  witness  appears  incomprehensible  till  after  the 
Maccabean  wars.  Consequently  it  must  be  correct  to  put  it  in 
the  second  half  of  the  second  century  B.C. 


5.  The  Aftee-Growths  of  the  Prophetic  Literature  (Obadiah, 
Joel,  Jonah,  Isaiah  xxiv.-xxvii.,  Zech.  x.-xiv.). — The 
Close  of  the  Canon  of  the  Prophets. 

Hitherto  we  have  been  following  out  the  legislative  and 
historical  literatures  to  their  farthest  twigs.  Now  there 
remain  three  other  classes  of  post-exilic  writing  to  be  dis- 
cussed :  the  after-growths  of  the  prophetic  literature ;  the 
remains  of  the  poetry  proper  (religious  and  secular)  in  the 
Psalms  and  the  Song  of  Songs;  finally,  the  products  of  the 
so-called  '^Wisdom  Literature,''  in  poetry  and  prose,  i.e. 
(besides  a  considerable  number  of  psalms).  Proverbs,  Job  and 
Ecclesiastes. 

The  old  opinion  that  Malachi  was  the  last  of  all  the  prophets 
may  have  been  correct  to  this  extent  that  Malachi  perhaps 
laboured  by  oral  speech  as  well  as  in  writing.  All  the  pro- 
phecies which  we  find  after  him  must  be  regarded  as  simply 
literary  products.  The  chief  proof  of  this  is  that  (apart  from 
the  unique  Book  of  Jonah)  they  are  almost  everywhere  strictly 
dependent  on  the  pre-exilic  prophecies.       This  may  justify 


THE    AFTER-GEOWTHS    OF    THE    PROPHETIC    LITERATURE.  133 

tlie  designation  used  above,  "  After-Growths  of  the  Prophetic 
Literature.''  It  is  impossible  to  fix  their  chronological 
position  more  definitely  ;  even  the  order  in  which  we  adduce 
them  is  founded  merely  on  conjecture. 

The  threatenino-  oracle  of  Obadiah  aofainst  the  Edomites 
doubtless  presupposes  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
Chaldeans,  v.  10-14.  On  the  other  hand  the  nine  first  verses 
must  be  derived  from  a  far  more  remote  time  (possibly  even 
from  the  ninth  century),  for  Jeremiah  makes  use  of  them, 
chap.  xlix.  14-16,  9,  10,  7,  i.e.,  in  another  order  and  altogether 
less  exactly  than  in  Obadiah.  In  our  present  Obadiah,  there- 
fore, a  minatory  prophecy  against  the  Edomites,  characterized 
by  antique  vigour  of  expression,  is  supplemented  by  a  renewed 
threat  which  looks  back  on  Edom's  transgression  in  586 
and  forwards  to  the  recompense  in  the  Messianic  time.  The 
manner  in  which  Jahweh's  Day  of  Judgment  on  all  nations 
is  expected  at  v.  15  brings  us  near  to  Joel  and  at  all  events 
into  the  fifth  century.  But  it  is  questionable  whether  remnants 
of  the  ancient  oracle  have  not  also  been  preserved  in 
V.  15-21,  and  equally  so  whether  the  name  Obadiah,  i.  1,  is 
that  of  the  supplementer  or  of  the  author  of  the  original 
oracle.  This  oracle  might  have  been  occasioned  by  the  revolt 
of  the  Edomites  under  Jehoram  of  Judah  (about  845) .  But 
the  hostility  of  the  Edomites  towards  the  Juda3ans  Avas  so 
frequently  manifested  on  other  occasions  that  we  must  despair 
of  any  nearer  definition. 

No  less  difficulty  is  found  in  placing  the  Writings  of  Joel, 
son  of  Pethuel,  who  sees  in  the  irruption  of  a  great  plague 
of  locusts  the  token  of  the  [Judgment]  Day  of  Jahweh  and 
earnestly  exhorts  Israel  to  avert  the  outbreak  of  the  Divine 
wrath  by  deep  repentance.  Jahweh  does  in  fact  hear  their 
prayer  (ii.  18  ff.).  The  promise  of  renewed  harvest-blessing 
passes  over  in  chap.  iii.  into  a  promise  of  other  blessings  in 
the  Messianic  time  ;  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  of  God  on 
all  members  of  the  nation  of  Israel  and  the  final  deliverance 
of  Israel  by  means  of  the  judgment  on  all  nations  in  the 
Valley  of  Jehoshaphat. 


134  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PEEIOD. 

From  chaps,  i.  and  ii.  it  results  that  the  authoi'  lived  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  temple  and  (on  account  of  the  great  importance 
he  ascribes  to  the  meal  and  drink-offering,  the  fast  and  the 
assembly  in  the  temple)  in  all  probability  was  a  priest.  Froni  • 
his  not  mentioning  the  Arama3ans  and  Assyrians  amongst  the 
enemies  of  the  people  it  was  long  held  that  he  belonged  to 
the  earlier,  pre-exilic  time.  The  remarkable  silence  of  a 
Jerusalemite  respecting  the  king  was  explained  by  the  suppo- 
sition that  he  lived  during  the  minority  of  Joash  of  Judah 
(about  835).  His  position  almost  at  the  head  of  the  minor 
prophets  seemed  also  to  recommend  his  being  placed  in  the 
ninth  century.  But  all  these  reasons  have  of  late  been  almost 
universally  recognized  as  invalid.  Rather  does  iv.  2  fF., 
incontrovertibly  presuppose  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 
the  Chaldaeans,  and  i.  ii.,  the  post-exilic  community  (ii.  16), 
in  which  there  is  no  king  and  no  princes,  but  simply  elders 
(i.  14)  and  priests,  ^^  the  servants  of  Jahweh ''  (i.  9,  &c.),  as 
leaders  of  the  people :  the  fixed,  official  ritual  of  sacrifice 
also  plays  an  important  part.  Corresponding  to  this  there 
is  no  longer  the  least  hint  of  idolatry  or  similar  faults,  and 
complete  silence  is  maintained  concerning  the  Kingdom  of 
Israel.  Israel,  on  the  contrary,  is  now  represented  by  Judah 
alone  (ii.  27,  iv.  2,  16).  Finally  let  it  be  added  that  iii.  5 
plainly  refers  to  long-familiar  prophetic  utterances,  in  fact  to 
Obadiah,  17  (perhaps  also  to  Isaiah  xxxiv.),  that  iv.  18  refers 
to  Ezek.  xlvii.  and  iv.  19  to  Obad.,  10,  and  no  doubt  will 
remain  that  Joel  should  be  put  about  400  B.C.  There  is 
nothing  against  this  in  the  linguistic  characteristics  of  the 
book  (in  the  use,  for  example,  of  the  Aramaic  word  for 
''End,'^ii.  20). 

In  the  approximately  contemporary  Booh  of  Jonah  we  have 
the  only  prophetic  book  which  declares  an  important  religious 
doctrine  entirely  in  the  form  of  a  narrative.  The  hero  of 
the  story,  Jonah,  son  of  Amittai,  is  no  doubt  identical  Avitli 
the  prophet  of  the  same  name  who  prophesied,  according  to 
2  Kings  xiv.  25,  under  Jeroboam  II.  (about  760).  This  does 
not  mean  that  he  was  also  the  author  of  the  booklet.     Instead 


THE    AFTER-GROWTHS    OF    THE    PROPHETIC    LITERATURE.         135 

of  this  the  narrator  (iii.  3)  docs  not  conceal  the  fact  that 
Nineveh  in  his  time  was  a  vanished  power.  Tlio  way  in 
which  the  most  astounding  things  (ii.  1,  iv.  10)  are  related  as 
though  they  needed  no  explanation  shows  clearly  that  the 
narrator  was  not  concerned  with  the  marvels  but  with  the 
doctrines  connected  with  them.  Hence  the  only  question  is 
whether  the  whole  should  be  regarded  as  a  kind  of  parable 
or  as  a  free  adaptation  of  an  old  legend  of  the  prophets.  The 
latter  is  more  probable  because  of  the  story ^s  being  attached 
to  a  definite  historical  person.  But  the  teaching  which  the 
narrator  purposes  to  g-ive  can  only  be  found  in  the  closing 
words,  iv.  10  f.  It  simply  runs  :  God  wilieth  not  the  death  of 
a  sinner,  but  rather  that  he  may  turn  and  live.  The  threat 
of  God^s  wrath  once  uttered  is  not  a  blind  fate  which  must 
work  itself  out  in  any  case  :  by  repentance  its  recall  can  be 
procured — even  by  the  heathen — and  thus  the  Creator's 
purpose  of  love  towards  all  His  creatures  retains  its 
supremacy.  The  point  of  this  teaching  is  evidently  directed 
against  the  unspiritual,  revengeful  disposition  of  his  fellow- 
countrymen,  who  thought  they  had  a  right  to  murmur  at  the 
continued  delay  of  the  sentence  on  Babylon  and  the  heathen 
oppressors  of  Israel  in  general.  Thus  regarded,  the  little 
book  is  far  from  meriting  the  mockery  of  the  injudicious,  for 
it  stands  at  the  very  topmost  point  of  prophetic  intuition, 
leaving  a  long  way  behind  the  idea  of  God  -which  was 
cherished  in  the  popular  religion  (the  so-called  '^  particu- 
laristic ''  view),  and  recalling  such  New  Testament  sayings  as 
1  Tim.  ii.  4. 

We  are  brought  down  to  a  later  time,  probably  indeed  to 
the  beginning  of  the  Greek  period,  by  the  very  remarkable 
and  extremely  obscure  chaps,  xxiv.-xxvii.  of  the  Book  of 
Isaiah.  Dim  allusions  to  contemporary  events  (xxiv.  10,  14; 
XXV.  2  ;  xxvi.  20  ;  xxvii.  10)  are  woven  into  an  inextricable 
whole  with  eschatological  glimpses  of  the  future  (xxiv.  21  ff.; 
XXV.  7f. ;  xxvi.  19).  The  only  certain  point  (from  xxv.  10) 
is  that  the  prophet  writes  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of 
the  temple-hill  and  therefore  in  Jerusalem.      A  number  of 


136  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

linguistic  phenomena,  in  particular  an  almost  boundless  accu- 
mulation of  plays  on  words,  would  be  enougb  to  demonstrate 
that,  notwithstanding  his  impressive  language  and  many 
profound  thoughts,  the  prophet  could  not  be  identical  with 
the  Isaiah  of  the  eighth  century.  Moreover,  the  attempt 
formerly  made  to  place  them  prior  to  588  or  in  the  Exile  is 
shipwrecked  on  the  Biblico-theological  character  of  these 
four  chapters.  Such  theologumena  as  that  of  the  annihila- 
tion of  Death  (xxv.  8)  are  unheard  of  in  the  earlier  post-exilic 
time,  and  such  utterances  as  xxiv.  21  and  xxvi.  19,  have 
their  parallels  only  in  very  late  psalms  and  the  Book  of 
Daniel. 

The  so-called  Deutero-Zechariah,  i.e.,  Zech.  ix.-xiv.,  must 
be  regarded  as  one  of  the  latest  portions  of  all  the  prophetic 
books.  These  six  chapters  continued  to  be  attributed  to 
Zechariah,  the  contemporary  of  Haggai,  in  accordance  with 
Jewish  tradition,  notwithstanding  the  special  title  in  ix.  1 
(which  was  afterwards  imitated,  as  it  appears,  by  a  redactor 
at  xii.  1  and  Mai.  i.  1),  until  the  English  theologian,  J.  Mede 
(tl638)  ascribed  Zech.  ix.-xi.  to  Jeremiah,  because  of  Matt, 
xxvii.  9  (where  Zech.  xi.  12f.  is  evidently  confused  with 
Jer.  xxxii.  Off.).  On  the  other  hand  the  Hamburg  theo- 
logian, Fliigge,  1784,  wished  to  distinguish  no  fewer  than 
nine  distinct  oracles  in  Zech.  ix.-xiv.  The  constantly  repeated 
attempts  to  solve  the  riddle  led  to  quite  discordant  results. 
The  right  track  already  found  by  Eichhorn,  was  again  for- 
saken, and — no  doubt  on  attractive  grounds — ix.-xi.  were 
ascribed  to  a  prophet  of  the  time  of  Ahaz  (that  is  about  735), 
xii.-xiv.  to  one  of  the  time  of  Manasseh,  or  (by  most)  to  the 
end  of  the  seventh,  century.  This  solution  of  the  problem 
was  for  several  decades  held  to  be  indisputable  till  1881,  when 
Stade  overthrew  it  by  convincing  arguments  in  the  Zeitsch. 
fiir  die  Alttest.  Wissenschaft  (Years  I.  and  II.).  If  Stade 
also  has  gone  too  far  in  asserting  that  Deutero-Zechariah  is 
dependent  throughout  on  pre-exilic  and  post-exilic  prophets, 
he  is  right  in  maintaining  that  such  passages  as  ix.  8,  11  ff. ; 
X.  2,  6,  8  ff.  refers  to  judgments  executed  in  the  distant  past. 


THE    AFTER-GKOWTHS    OP    THE    PROrHETIC    LITERATURE.         137 

especially  to  the  banishment  of  the  inhabitants  of  both  king- 
doms;  that  a  form  of  Levitism  is  implied  in  xiv.  IG  and  20  f. 
(of.  Exod.  xxxix.  oO)  which  is  inconceivable  till  after  Ezra's 
time,  and,  above  all,  that  ix.  13  can  only  be  explained  of 
the  Graeco-Macedonian  world-power.  Assyria  and  Egypt, 
therefore,  were  veiled  designations  of  the  Seleucid  and 
the  Ptolemaic  Kingdoms.  We  cannot  hope  for  an  exact 
interpretation  of  such  passages  as  xi.  8  (formerly  explained 
from  2  Kings  xv.  8-14)  and  xii.  10  ff.  (formerly  referred  to 
the  prophet  Uriah,  Jer.  xxvi.  20  if.,  or  to  Josiah),  especially 
as  the  allusions  to  current  events  are  often  closely  interwoven 
with  the  eschatological  glimpses,  quite  in  the  manner  of 
Isa.  xxiv.-xxvii. 

Kuenen,"^  in  particular  (Einl.^  ii.  411)  has  raised  objections 
to  Stade's  final  conclusion  that  the  whole  should  be  put  about 
280.  According  to  him  ancient  fragments  survive  in 
chaps,  ix.-xi.  and  xiii.  7-9,  originating  mainly  in  the  eighth 
century  (about  745  ff.),  arranged  by  a  post-exilic  redactor 
partly  in  a  peculiar  fashion,  and  furnished  with  additions. 
And  it  really  must  be  asked  whether  every  mention  of 
Ephraim  (cf.  especially  ix.  10  and  xi.  4-14)  can  be  considered 
merely  a  filling  up  of  the  Messianic  picture,  although  Ephraim 
itself  had  disappeared  in  the  Exile  long  before  the  prophet's 
day.  The  mention  of  the  teraphim  and  diviners  (x.  2)  is  also 
very  suprising  for  the  Greek  period.  But  the  verdict  on 
chaps,  ix.-xi.  as  a  whole  is  not  altered  by  its  being  shown  to 
be  probable  that  there  are  fragments  from  an  older  time. 
Kueuen  puts  chaps,  xii. -xiv.  about  400.  The  bringing  them 
down  to  the  Greek  time  arose  simply  from  the  supposed  unity 
of  chaps,  ix.-xiv.  But  this  was  not  proved  by  Stade  (who 
holds  that  chaps,  ix.  and  x.  contain  a  combination  of  the 
still  unfulfilled  older  predictions  and  xi.-xiv.  an  elucidation  of 
individual  points  and  limitations) .     However  this  may  be  the 

*  H.  Schultz,  also,  Alttestament.  Theol.'MGott.,  1896),  p.  49  [Eng.  Trans., 
p.  70]  supports  the  placing  of  chaps,  ix.-xi.  and  xiii.  7  ff.  in  the  anarchy  after  the 
death  of  Jeroboam  II.,  and  thinks  that  chaps,  xii.,  xiii.  1-7,  xiv.  originated 
about  600  B.C. 


138  §    G.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

uniting  o£  Zech.  ix.-xiv.  with  cliaps.  i.-viii.,  effected  by  Jewisli 
tradition,  must  be  explained  in  precisely  the  same  way  as  that 
of  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  with  chaps,  i.-xxxix.  The  anonymous  pieces, 
Zech.  ix.-xiv.  (or  ix.-xi.,  xii.-xiv.)  and  Mai.  i.-iii.,  perhaps 
after  they  had  been  reduced  to  their  present  shape  by  a 
redactor  and  provided  with  titles,  were  placed  at  the  close  of 
the  minor  prophets,  till  at  last  Zech.  ix.-xiv.  was  erroneously 
regarded  as  a  part  of  the  immediately  preceding  book. 

All  that  we  have  had  to  say  about  the  prophetic  writings  of 
the  post-exilic  time  ought  to  prove  that  prophecy  cannot  be 
affirmed  to  have  expired  with  Malachi.  But  apart  from  Joel, 
Jonah,  Isa.  xxiv.-xxvii.  and  Zech.  ix.-xiv.,  many  other 
additions,  besides  isolated  alterations  in  the  older  prophetic 
books,  testify  to  the  literary  ardour  which  was  devoted  to 
prophecy  and  its  products  as  late  as  the  Greek  period. 
Several  of  these  after-shoots  {e.g.,  Isa.  xxiii.  32  f.,  Micah 
vii.  7  ff.,  Jer.  1.  f.,  Ilab.  iii.,  Zeph.  iii.  14  ff.)  have  already  been 
mentioned  in  this  Outline.  The  conclusion  of  Amos  (ix.  8  if.) 
is  also  counted  by  many  moderns  amongst  the  post-exilic 
supplements  to  the  old  prophetic  utterances.  The  time  of  the 
translator  of  Jesus  Sirach  must  be  considered  the  lowest 
limit  for  the  close  of  the  'prophetic  canon  as  the  second  part 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible  (because  he  refers  in  his  prologue  to 
"  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  ") .  But  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
our  dating  the  final  redaction  of  the  "  Former  and  the  Later 
Prophets  "  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  B.C., 
although  we  know  no  more  about  any  official  act  of  canoniza- 
tion than  in  the  case  of  the  Pentateuch. 


6.  The  Book  op  Daniel. 

The  Book  of  Daniel,  which,  on  account  of  its  position  in  the 
German  [and  English]  Bible,  is  usually  reckoned  amongst 
the  "  Greater  Prophets,"  belongs  to  another  part  of 
the    Hebrew  Bible    and  also    to   another  class  of   literature. 


THE    BOOK    OF    DANIEL.  139 

Tradition  looked  upon  it  as  tlie  work  of  a  Jo  wish  exile  wlio 
was  brought  up  at  the  court  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  under  him 
and  his  successors  came  to  great  honour.  The  book  itself 
contains  no  statement  that  the  whole  was  composed  by  Daniel. 
Yet  in  chaps,  viii.-xi.  he  speaks  in  the  first  person,  whereas  in 
chaps,  i.-vii.  he  is  spoken  of  in  the  third.  The  contents  of 
the  book  fall  into  two  divisions  :  the  Narratives  (chaps,  i.-vi.) 
and  the  Visions  (chaps,  vii.-xii.). 

It  has  long  been  seen  that  if  the  narratives  are  con- 
sidered to  be  accounts  of  actual  events  they  lie  open  to  the 
strongest  possible  objections,  and  the  best-meant  attempts  fail 
to  meet  these.  History  knows  nothing  about  a  siege  of 
Jerusalem  in  the  third  jenv  of  Jehoiakim  (i.  1).  The  mention 
of  the  "  Chalda3ans  "  at  Nebuchadnezzar^s  court  (ii.  2,  &c.) 
betrays  a  time  when  the  old  national  name  had  at  length 
assumed  this  quite  special  sense  of  Magi  or  astrologers.. 
These  *^  Chalda3ans^^  speak  "^  to  Nebuchadnezzar  in  West- 
Aramaic  instead  of  in  that  Babylonian  language  which  is 
preserved  in  countless  cuneiform  inscriptions.  Other 
unhistorical  features  are :  The  seven  years^  insanity  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  (iv.  30  fF.)  ;  Belshazzar  as  son  and  successor 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  last  king  of  Babylon  ;  and  Darius  the 
Mede  as  successor  of  Belshazzar.  All  these  are  statements 
utterly  impossible  to  a  contemporary  of  the  events  of  608-536. 

On  the  other  hand  all  difficulties  vanish  at  a  stroke  when 
the  true  character  of  the  book  is  admitted  :  a  work  of  comfort 
and  exhortation  belonging  to  the  time  when  the  Jews  were 
sorely  oppressed  by  Antiochus  Ephiphanes  IV.  Indeed,  the 
limit  of  its  composition  can  be  pretty  accurately  determined. 
At  vii.  14  the  re-dedication  of  the  temple  is  still  an  object  of 
expectation.  It  was  accomplished  in  Dec,  165.  The  composi- 
tion of  the  book  must  be  placed  before  this  limit,  whether 
in  the  year  165  or  just  previously. 

*  The  Aramaic  part  of  Daniel,  beginning  at  ii.  4,  reaches  to  the  close  of  the 
seventh  chapter.  From  the  misunderstanding  of  ii.  4  arose  the  quite  erroneous 
designation  of  the  West-Aramaic  idiom  (which  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  also 
spoke)  as  the  "  Chaldiean  Language." 


140  §    6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

Kot  only  sucL.  facts  as  the  silence  of  Jesus  Siracli  con- 
cerning Daniel,  the  very  advanced  development  of  the 
angelology  and  eschatology,  the  position  of  the  book  almost  at 
the  close  of  the  Hebrew  canon,  but,  above  all,  its  peculiar 
contents,  are  accounted  for  by  this  theory.  Everything 
contributes  to  a  single  end — the  exhortation  to  endurance, 
endurance  at  any  cost,  in  a  dire  distress  which  seemed  to 
threaten  the  existence  of  the  people  and  the  ancestral 
religion.  The  author  pursues  this  end  in  two  ways.  By 
the  example  of  Daniel  (who,  according  to  Ezek.  xiv.  14,  20, 
xxviii.  3,  must  have  been  a  greatly  lauded  personality  of 
ancient  times)  and  his  companions,  he  shows  that  God  can 
guard  from  all  harm  the  true  confessors  of  His  name  and  the 
zealous  observers  of  His  law,  and  can  rescue  them  miraculously 
from  the  utmost  conceivable  mortal  peril  (chap.  iii.  !),  so  that 
heathen  tyrants  also  are  compelled  to  recognize  His  power 
and  greatness.  If  this  is  the  one  aim  of  the  narratives  Ave 
can  easily  overlook  the  facts  that  Daniel,  the  scrupulous 
observer  of  the  Dietary  Laws  (chap,  i.)  officiates  as  head  of 
the  heathen  Magi,  that  he  has  not  only  to  explain  Nebuchad- 
nezzar's dream  but  must  first  divine  what  it  was  (chap,  ii.), 
that  Nebuchadnezzar's  conversion  (ii.  46  ff.)  is  at  once  quite 
forgotten  (chap,  iii.),  and  many  other  points.  The  other 
method  which  the  author  uses  is  the  form  of  the  '^  Apocalypse," 
i.e. J  the  predicting  by  a  prophet-voice  of  antiquity  events  which 
have  already  occurred.  Thus  in  chaps,  ii.  and  vii.  the  order 
and  character  of  the  four  world-empires  (Babylonian,  Mede, 
Persian  and  Greek),  and  in  chap.  xi.  the  fortunes  and  conflicts 
of  the  Diadochi,  down  to  Antiochus  IV.,  are  revealed  with 
such  fulness  of  detail  that  even  in  the  first  Christian  centuries 
the  real  standpoint  of  the  Apocalyptic  writer  was  recognized 
by  heathen  critics."^  The  author  evidently  hoped  (and  certainly 
not  without  reason  !)  that  by  clothing  his  ideas  in  this  form  he 

*  This  real  standpoint  also  appears  from  chap.  ix.  Daniel  is  here  troubled 
because  the  prediction  of  Jer.  xxv.  11  has  not  been  fulfilled.  But  at  that  time 
(about  538)  not  seventy  years,  but  fifty  at  most  had  elapsed  since  the  beginning 
of  the  Exile. 


THK    POETICAL    BOOKS.  141 

would  make  a  deeper  impression  and  the  more  surely  attain 
his  end.  The  form  of  an  Apocalypse  enabled  him  to  bring- 
out  in  the  clearest  fashion  the  thoughts  on  which  he  believed 
everything  depended :  all  these  disturbances  and  persecu- 
tions, all  the  bloody  abominations  and  desecrations  of  things 
holy  which  God^s  people  must  experience,  are  but  the 
immediate  forerunners  of  the  time  of  redemption  when  the 
blasphemers  and  destroyers  will  be  judged  and  '^'^the  rule, 
power  and  might  of  the  kingdoms  under  the  whole  heaven 
shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High, 
and  His  kingdom  shall  be  an  everlasting  kingdom"  (chap, 
vii.  20  f. ;  cf.  also  xii.  1  ff.). 


7.  The  Poetical  Books. 

a.  The  Psalter. 

Amongst  the  so-called  "Poetical  Books'^  the  Psalter,  the 
hymn  book  of  the  post-exilic  Jewish  community  and  the 
noblest  Prayer  Book  of  Christianity,  takes  by  far  the  foremost 
place  in  regard  to  their  significance  for  the  history  of 
religion.*  In  its  present  form  it  is  a  collection  of  150t  lyric 
(in  part  also  lyric-didactic  or  elegiac)  poems,  the  whole  of 
which  (including  the  *^  Marriage  Song,"  Ps.  xlv.)  are  religious 
in  substance  and  were  compiled  for  the  promotion  of  the 
edification  of  the  post-exilic  community,  especially  in  divine 
service.  A  hundred  of  tbem  are  ascribed  to  definite  authors — 
one  to   Moses  (Ps.   xc.)  ;    seventy-three   (eighty-three  in    the 

*  Jewish  tradition  regards  the  Psalms,  Proverbs,  and  Job  as  poetical  books  in 
the  stricter  sense.  These  three  are,  therefore,  accentuated  on  a  different 
system  from  the  remaining  twenty- one  books. 

t  The  enumeration  of  the  Psalms  varies  even  in  Hebrew  manuscripts.  In  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Bibles  Ps.  ix.  and  x.  are  correctly  made  one,  also  (incorrectly) 
Ps.  cxiv.  and  cxv. :  on  the  other  hand  Ps.  cxvi.  and  cxlvii.  (here  again 
incorrectly)  are  divided  into  two.  (Besides  ix.  and  x.,  Ps.  xlii.  and  xliii.  are 
erroneously  divided  as  well  as  Ps.  cxvii.  and  cxviii.  Ps.  cviii.  is  a  compilation 
from  Ps.  Ivii.  8-12  and  Ix.  7-14.) 


142  §    G.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

Greek  Bible,  which  in  otlier  points  also  differs  considerably 
from  the  Hebrew  in  the  titles)  to  David;  two  (Ixxii.,  cxxvii.)  to 
Solomon  ;  twelve  (1.,  Ixxiii.-lxxxiii.)  to  Asaph  ;  one  each  to 
Heman  and  Ethan  (lxxxviii._,  Ixxxix.);  ten  (leaving  out  Ixxxviii.) 
to  the  Korahites.  Sixteen  psalms  have  other  titles  :  thirty- 
four  ('^'^the  orphans  ^0  are  entirely  without.  Seeing  that  by 
Asaph,  Heman  and  Ethan,  the  Davidic  choirmasters  thus  named 
(I  Chron.  XV.  17)  are  doubtless  meant,  and  that  the  Korahites 
are  probably  thought  of  as  David's  contemporaries,  all  the 
statements  respecting  psalmists,  at  least  in  Pss.  i. -Ixxxix  (see 
below)  must  proceed  from  the  assumption  that  no  psalm  is 
more  recent  than  the  age  of  David  and  Solomon.  For  the 
opinion  that  those  titles  were  not  originally  intended  to 
indicate  the  author  but  onl}^  to  intimate  that  the  psalm 
was  to  be  apportioned  to  the  division  of  the  temple-choir 
named  after  David,  Asaph,  &c.,"^  is  refuted  by  the  title  of 
Ps.  xc.  and,  above  all,  by  those  of  Ps.  li.  f .,  liv.,  Ivi.  f .,  lix.  f ., 
Ixiii.  This  is  also  true  of  the  theory  that  ^'  of  David,  &c.,^' 
was  meant  to  point  to  the  Book  of  Poems  named  after 
David,  &c.,  from  which  the  psalm  had  been  taken  (Baethgen, 
Psalmen,  p.  vii.).  "  Of  the  Korahites '^  is  the  only  title  that 
can  be  satisfactorily  explained  (with  Hupfeld)  in  this  way. 

The  fact  that  psalms  which  can  be  shown  to  be  late  (cf., 
e.g.,  in  regard  to  Solomon,  p.  14,  above)  are  very  often  in  the 
titles  ascribed  to  definite  authors  on  the  ground  of  mere 
conjectures,  and  that  in  the  above-mentioned  psalms  from  li. 
onwards,  events  from  the  life  of  David  (founded  on  the  Books 
of  Samuel)  were  alleged  as  the  historical  occasions  for  poems 
obviously  belonging  to  the  community,  compels  us  to  conclude 
that  all  these  titles  are  later  additions,  and  therefore  have 
absolutely  no  validity  in  proving  the  authorship  and  date  of 
the  several  psalms.  As  to  David,  we  refer  to  the  remarks 
above,  p.  11.  What  is  there  said  respecting  the  possibility 
of  genuinely  Davidic  poems  or  fragments  having  passed  from 
some  pre-exilic  Book  of  Songs  into  the  post-exilic  collections 

*  Thus  de  Lagarde,  Orientalia,  ii.  13. 


THE    POETICAL    BOOKS.  143 

of  songs  must  now  be  yet  further  generalized  :  our  present 
Psalter  in  all  probability  contains  a  fair  number  of  pre-exilic 
songs  or  fragments  of  songs.  To  say  nothing  of  the  so-called 
Royal  Psalms,  xx.,  xxi.,  xlv.,  which  can  only  be  understood 
as  songs  from  before  the  Exile,  or  of  the  manifold  traces  of 
antique  phraseology,  o)i6  circumstance  in  particular  supports 
this.  Such  energetic  denial  of  the  necesssity  of  the  sacrificial 
ritual  as  is  found  in  xl.  7,  1.  8  ff.,  and  li.  18  f.  (softened  down 
Avitli  much  trouble  by  the  liturgical  addition,  v.  20  f.)  could 
not  have  found  its  way  into  the  temple  hymn  book  till  the 
psalms  which  contain  it  had  long  been  clothed  with  a  kind  of 
canonical  dignity.  For  the  rest,  however,  the  determination 
of  the  age  of  individual  psalms  depends  mainly  on  subjective 
considerations,  and  is  therefore  easily  liable  to  error.  For 
the  adaptation  of  the  psalms  to  liturgical  use  must  frequently 
(just  as  in  our  hymn  books)  have  necessitated  serious  altera- 
tions of  their  original  form.  Hoiv  idle  the  dispute  concerning 
these  annotations  is  must  be  clear  above  all  others  to  the 
man  who  employs  the  psalms  for  the  purpose  for  which  they 
were  collected.  What  in  the  world  has  the  perennial  edifying 
power  of  psalms  like  xxiii.,  xc,  ciii.,  cxxi.,  cxxvii.,  and  many 
others,  to  do  with  the  question  whether  some  post-exilic 
redactor  was  right  or  wrong  in  attributing  them  to  David  or 
Moses  or  Solomon  ? 

It  is  now  as  good  as  universally  admitted  that  the  musical 
titles  and  annotations  (almost  all  of  them  thoroughly  obscure) 
are  all  connected  with  the  temple  music  and  the  temple 
song  of  the  post-exilic  time,  and  therefore  for  the  most  part 
were  later  additions,  if  not  actually  added  at  the  final  revision 
of  the  Psalter.  This  explains  how  one  and  the  same  psalm 
<xiv.  and  liii.)  received  different  titles  when  admitted  into 
diflferent  collections.  Express  mention  of  the  liturgical 
occasion  is  found  in  the  titles  of  Ps.  xxx.,  xxxviii.,  Ixx., 
xcii.,  c. 

The  origin  of  our  present  Psalter  in  successive  stages  has 
gradually  become  clcEir  through  the  observation  of  the 
following  facts.     The  division  of  the  Psalter  into  Five  Books 


144  §  6. 


THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 


is  attested  from  the  second  century  a.d.,  although  special 
(but  always  unvocalised)  titles,  such  as  "  First  Book/^  &c., 
may  not  have  been  added  till  much  later  in  the  Hebrew  Bible 
manuscripts.  The  close  of  the  several  books  is  indicated  at 
the  end  of  Ps.  xli.,  Ixxii.,  Ixxxix,  cvi.  by  a  so-called  doxology 
(praise)  :  the  entire  150th  Psalm  serves  as  doxology  to  the 
Fifth  Book.  Since  the  doxology  to  Ps.  cvi.  seems  to  be  cited 
at  1  Chron.  xvi.  36,  it  was  formerly  concluded  that  the 
Chronicler  must  have  been  acquainted  with  the  Psalter  in  its 
present  form,  along  with  the  division  into  Five  Books.  But 
the  opposite  conviction  has  recently  asserted  itself  with  ever 
increasing  force  :  the  doxology  in  1  Chron.  xvi.  36  is  original 
and  therefore  was  added  subsequently  to  Ps.  cvi.  in  order  to- 
form  a  Fourth  Book  with  the  same  number  of  psalms  (seven- 
teen) as  the  Third.  After  Ps.  Ixxii.  comes  the  subscription 
(which  the  punctators  regarded  as  part  of  the  text),  "The 
prayers  of  David,  son  of  Jesse,  are  ended.''  Hence  it  is 
clear  that  the  Third  Book  (Ps.  Ixxiii.-lxxxix.)  is  due  to  a 
redactor  who  wished  to  supplement  a  collection  of  Davidic 
poems  by  a  gleaning  of  non-Davidic  ones  (already,  however,, 
ascribed  to  David's  choirmasters).  But  closer  observation  of 
Ps.  i.-lxxii.  shows  that  this  part  also  does  not  represent  a 
hom.ogeneous  collection.  In  the  first  place,  Ps.  xlii.-xlix. 
(Korahite  psalms))  and  the  Asaph-psalm,  1.,  must  originally 
have  formed  a  whole  with  Ps.  Ixxiii.-lxxxix.  The  phrase- 
ology of  the  subscription  after  Ps.  Ixxii.  (originally  probable- 
after  Ps.lxxi.)  shows  that  it  can  only  have  referred  to  Ps.  iii.- 
xli.  and  li.-lxxi.  For  all  these  psalms  are  attributed  to  David 
except  Ps.  X.,  the  second  half  of  Ps.  ix.,"^  Ps.  xxxiii.,  Ixvi., 
Ixvii.,  Ixxi. ;  and  the  Greek  Bible  also  designates  Ps.  xxxiii., 
Ixvii.,  and  Ixxi.  as  Davidic. 
But  the  marking  out  of  Ps.  iii.-xli.  by  the  concluding  doxology 

*  That  Ps.  ix.  and  x.  originally  formed  one  psalm  is  seen  from  the  alphabetic 
arrangement  of  the  beginnings  of  the  verses  (to  say  nothing  of  the  absence  of 
a  title  to  Ps.  x.).  In  Ps.  ix.  the  alphabetic  arrangement  is  almost  unbroken 
(down  to  the  tenth  letter)  ;  in  Ps.  x.  it  has  been  retained  at  least  in  v.  1  and 
V.  12  ff . 


THE    POETICAL    BOOKS.  145 

^s  a  special  collection  is  seen  to  be  correct ;  first,  from  the 
two-fold  admission  of  the  same  psalms  (xiv.  ■=  liii. ;  xl.  14ff. 
=  Ixx.),  and  then,  from  the  following  discovery  of  Ewald's. 
Whilst  the  First  Book  uses  the  divine  name  Jahweh  278  times 
and  the  name  Elohim  (God)  only  about  seven  times,  when 
Jahweh  might  have  been  expected,  Elohim  preponderates 
to  such  an  extent  in  Ps.  xlii.-lxxxiii.  as  to  stand  two  hundred 
times  compared  with  Jahweh  forty-three  times.  The  only 
explanation,  especially  when  xiv.  and  liii.  have  been  compared 
together,  is  that  some  redactor,  on  account  of  religious 
scruples,  attempted  to  replace  the  divine  name  Jahweh  by 
Elohim  in  the  separate  collection  xlii.-lxxxiii.  (which,  there- 
fore, still  lacked  the  gleanings  of  Korahite  and  other 
psalms,  Ixxxiv.-lxxxix.).  He  did  not,  indeed,  quite  attain 
his  end,  for  Jahweh  often  asserted  itself  in  the  text  alongside 
Elohim  or  Adonai  (a  specially  striking  instance  at  1.  1  ;  cf. 
also  lix.  G,  Ixviii.  19,  Ixxx.  5,  20). 

The  gradual  growth  of  the  Psalter  is  accordingly  to  be  thus 
conceived  :  Ps.  iii.-xli.  formed  the  stem,  as  the  first  collection 
of  Davidic  poems,  arranged  about  the  time  of  Ezra.  Towards 
the  end  of  the  Persian  age  a  second  collection  of  Davidic 
poems  (li.-lxxi.)  followed,  together  with  poems  by  David's  con- 
temporaries (xlii.-xlix.,l.,lxxii.,lxiii.-lxxxiii.), with  a  later  glean- 
ing (Ixxxiv.-lxxxix.).  The  third  collection  (xc.-cl.)  must  have 
been  made  considerably  later,  and  contained  almost  exclusively 
the  later  and  latest  psalms  down  to  the  time  of  Simon,  the 
founder  of  the  Asmona3an  dynasty  (142  if.,  B.C.).  The  interval 
in  time  between  the  second  and  third  collections  is  shown 
chiefly  by  the  entire  absence  from  Ps.  xc.-cl.  of  the  musical 
titles  and  annotations,  w^hich  seem  to  have  been  quite  familiar 
to  so  late  a  writer  as  the  Chronicler.  In  the  times  after  him 
there  must  have  been  so  fundamental  a  transformation  of  the 
temple  music  that  those  ancient  technical  terms  w^ere  altogether 
unknown  to  the  Alexandrian  (Greek)  translation  of  the  Psalms. 
Within  the  latest  collection  several  connected  groups  may 
-clearly  be  distinguished  :  thus  Ps.  xcii.-c,  civ.-cvii.,  cxi.-cxvii., 
and  especially  the  splendid  group  of  the  ^'  Pilgrim  Songs,'' 

10 


146  §  C).    THE    POST-EXILTC    TEKIOD. 

Ps.  cxx.-cxxxiv.  It  was,  perhaps,  the  final  redactor  who 
prefixed  to  the  whole  collection  the  anonymous  Psalms  i.  and  ii. 
(which  are  still  reckoned  as  one  at  Acts  xiii.  33),  the  one 
as  a  kind  of  programme  of  the  fundamental  ethical  ideas 
of  the  Psalter,  the  other  of  its  theocratic  and  Messianic  hopes. 
Tet  one  of  them  may  have  served  as  an  introduction  to  an 
earlier  collection.  The  above  arrangement  of  the  three 
collections  does  not  imply  that  there  were  no  subsequent 
dislocations,  and  especially  that  isolated  Maccabtean  psalms 
(thus,  very  j^robably,  Ps.  xliv.  Ixxiv.,  Ixxxiii.),  had  not  alreadjr 
made  their  way  into  the  second  collection. 

The  religious  and  religious-historical  significance  of  the 
Psalter  cannot  easily  be  rated  too  high.  The  priestly  law- 
book which  Ezra  had  made  the  ruling  power,  by  its  extra- 
ordinary emphasis  on  all  the  ads  which  aim  at  external  purity 
and  propitiation  in  the  cultus  and  in  life,  readily  creates  the 
impression  that  the  entire  age  after  Ezra  gave  itself  up  entirely 
to  sacrifice  and  the  ceremonial  law,  or,  at  any  rate,  saw  in 
them  by  far  the  most  important  expression  of  religious  need 
and  feeling.  Not  as  though  the  Priests'  Law  had  wished 
the  ceremonial  law  to  be  observed  without  a  corresponding 
disposition,  opera  operata,  without  faith  and  personal  devotion 
to  God  and  one's  neighbour.  But  there  certainly  is  this  far- 
reaching  distinction  that  the  genuine  prophetic  view,  as  we 
find  it  at  Amos  v.  25,  Hosea  vi.  6,  Isa.  i.  11  ff".,  Micah.  vi.  6  ff., 
Jer.  vii.  21  ff".,  in  extraordinarily  powerful  testimonies,  held 
sacrifice  and  external  acts  to  be  indifferent  and  unessential — 
a  clear  proof  that  as  yet  they  knew  nothing  of  a  Divine 
appointment  respecting  these  things.  But  the  standpoint  of  the 
Priests' Code  is  that  the  sacrifices  and  external  acts  demanded  by 
the  law  are  the  most  excellent  and  absolately  indispensable 
expression  of  the  disposition  which  pleases  God. 

From  the  Psalter  we  learn  that  alongside  the  legal  tendency 
there  ran  another,  not  less  powerful,  which  became  of  import- 
ance even  in  the  temple-worshi]),  and  can  only  be  described 
as  a  continuation  and  worthy  exhibition  of  the  prophetic 
world  of   thought.     If  we  leave  out  Ps.  cxix.  the  reference 


THE    rOETICAL    BOOKS.  147 

to  the  law  in  tlie  Psalter  is  strikingly  infrequent,  and  wlien 
it  occurs  it  almost  always  (cf.,  (\g.,  i.  2,  xix.  8  ft'.,  xxxvii.  31) 
has  to  do  with  the  morally  purifying  and  preserving  operation, 
not  the  ritual  significance,  of  the  law.  But  what  an  abundance 
of  evidences  we  have  of  every  kind  of  most  fervent  and  genuine 
religious  feeling !  There  is  heartfelt  prayer  and  thanks- 
giving, world-conquering  faith  and  trust,  most  blessed 
fellowship  with  God  !  Indeed,  the  above-mentioned  genuinely- 
prophetic  view  of  sacrifice  here  finds  (Ps.  xl.  7,  1.  8  ff.,  li. 
18  f.)  vigorous  and,  as  we  have  already  said,  really  astonishing 
expression  in  the  worshipping  community  of  post-exilic  times. 
There  are,  too,  in  the  Psalter  many  classical  utterances  of  those 
loftiest  expectations  which,  on  account  of  their  significance 
for  all  God^s  saving  ways,  surpass  all  other  prophetic  thoughts 
in  importance — the  idea  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom  as  a  King- 
dom of  God  which,  thanks  to  the  missionary  vocation  of  Israel, 
embraces  all  the  heathen,  in  short,  the  destiny  of  Israel's 
religion  to  be  the  world's  religion.* 

The  correct  estimate  of  the  Psalter  has  been  greatly  pro- 
moted by  the  observation  made  long  ago,  but  long  and  often 
forgotten  again,  that  in  a  great  number  of  psalms  the  speaker 
is  not  a  single  godly  man  but  the  godly  community  of  the 
post-exilic  time.  This  is  connected  with  the  fact  that  the 
individual  is  nowhere  to  be  considered  as  the  subject  of 
religion  but  the  people.  The  people  was  chosen  by  Jahweh, 
redeemed  from  Egyptian  bondage  by  the  mighty  deeds  of  His 
arm,  and  thus  made  His  people.  Elsewhere  it  is  called  His 
first-born  son  (Exod.  iv.  22;  cf.  Hoscaxi.  1).  It  is  to  the  people 
that  the  threats  of  judgment  are  addressed,  as  well  as  the 
promises  of  resurrection  from  the  Exile  and  of  the  Messianic 
time.  It  would  indeed  be  a  mischievous  exaggeration  to 
recognize  nowhere  in  the  psalms  the  evidences  of  individual 
godliness,   of  individual  religious  experiences   and  needs,   to 

*  Cf.  Stade's  excellent  exposition  of  this  point  (in  Zeitschr.  fiir  Theol.  u.  Kirche, 
ii.  1892,  8G9  ff.)  which  was  formerly  subjected  to  ill-founded  criticisms  in  conse- 
quence of  the  critics  holding  much  too  mechanical  a  view  of  the  idea  "  Messianic 
Prophecy." 

10  * 


148  §  G.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

think  of  everything  as  spoken  onhj  from  the  soul  of  the  praying 
community.  To  say  nothing  of  the  possibility  that  many 
individual  traits  were  suppressed  or  transformed  when  the 
poems  were  received  into  the  Common  Hymn  Book,  this  thesis 
that  the  people  is  the  subject  of  the  Israelite  religion  greatly 
needs  limitation,  at  least  so  far  as  post-exilic  times  are  con- 
cerned. Jeremiah,  in  particular,  prepared  the  way  for  the 
release  of  religion  from  its  strait  connection  with  State  and 
nation  :  according  to  him  (xxxi.  83)  the  "new  covenant ^^ 
was  to  become  a  reality  in  the  inmost  heart  of  every  individual. 
It  would  thus  be  a  perverted  notion  if  we  were  absolutely 
to  deny  that  there  are  ^'  Individual  Psalms,^'  or  to  maintain 
that  in  the  Congregational  Psalms  the  poet  has  not  a  most 
vivid  iDersonal  participation  in  the  woe  or  joy  of  the  whole. 
But  this  does  not  detract  from  the  truth  that  a  fairly  large 
number  of  psalms,  the  interpretation  of  which  formerly  gave 
useless  trouble,  are  lit  up  at  once  when  taken  as  Congregational 
p>alms :  amongst  others  we  assign  iii.,  iv.,  vii.,  ix.  f.,  xi.,  xiii., 
and  very  esjoecially  xxii.,  to  this  class. "^ 


h.  The  Song  of  Songs. 

We  are  carried  into  quite  another  world  by  those  examples 
of  lyric  poetry  which  have  been  preserved  in  the  "  Song  of 
Songs,"  or  "  Canticles.'^  They  did  not  make  their  way  into 
the  Canon  without  opposition,  and  no  doubt  they  owe  their 
admission  to  the  two-fold  fact  that  they  were  held  to  be 
Solomon's  work,  and  could  be  allegorically  interpreted 
throughout — in  the  Synagogue  as  referring  to  the  relation 
between     Jahweli     and     the     Israelite     community,    in    the 

*  The  recognition  that  there  are  numerous  Congregational  psalms  has  been 
especially  promoted  in  recent  times  by  Olshausen,  Reuss  and  Cheyne.  We  may 
also  refer  to  the  discussion  of  this  question  and  of  the  underlying  theoretic 
principles  by  Smend  ("  Ueber  das  Ich  der  Psalmen ")  in  the  Zeitschr.  f.  die 
alttest.  Wissenscb.,  1888,  p.  49  f¥.,  the  most  thorough-going  development  of  the 
theory  of  a  Collective  subject;  and  by  Beer  ("Individual-  und  Gemeinde- 
psalmen,"  Marbux-g,  1894),  who  takes  an  intermediate  position. 


THE    POETICAL    BOOKS.  149 

Christian  Church  to  that  between  Christ  and  His  Bride  the 
Church.  But  a  closer  consideration  of  the  phraseology  com- 
pels us  to  reject  unhesitatingly  this  allegorical  interpretation 
as  unworthy  of  God  or  Christ.  That  phraseology  will  not 
permit  us  to  think  of  anything  but  the  glorification  of  the 
bliss  of  earthly  love,  and  that,  predominantly,  on  its  sensuous 
side.  Alongside  this,  passages  are  not  wanting  which  laud 
bridal  or  connubial  love  from  a  far  higher  point  of  view  (cf. 
especially  viii.  5  ff.).  After  the  allegorical  exposition  was 
abandoned,  these  passages  were  used  to  justify  the  view  that 
in  the  Canticles  generally  there  is  a  glorification  of  mono- 
gamistic  love  as  the  fellowship  designed  by  God,  in  contrast 
to  all  the  distortions  occasioned  by  the  harem-system  of  the 
great.  This  view  almost  always  went  hand  in  hand  with  the 
theory  that  Canticles  is  a  drama  or  opera  which  depicts  in 
actions  and  reciprocal  songs  the  bridal  love  of  a  country  pair 
(a  shepherd  and  the  Shulamite),  its  forcible  interruption  by 
Solomon,  Avho  carries  off  the  Shulamite  to  his  harem, 
Solomon's  fruitless  wooing,  the  stedfastness  of  the  Shulamite, 
and  finally  her  happy  reunion  with  her  beloved.  Countless 
attempts  have  been  made"^  to  divide  the  contents  of  the 
Canticles  in  this  or  some  similar  way  into  acts  and  scenes — 
mostly  assuming  that  the  MS.  leaves  have  been  transposed — 
and  to  apportion  them  to  the  actors  (Solomon,  the  Shulamite, 
the  shepherd),  perhaps  also  to  a  second  pair  of  lovers,  finally 
to  the  men  and  daughters  of  Jerusalem  (as  choir).  Tho 
smallest  of  the  difiiculties  in  the  way  of  these  attempts  is 
perhaps  this  :  none  of  the  divisions  are  in  any  way  indicated 
and  consequently  no  two  of  the  dramatizations  coincide. 
The  other  difficulty  is  greater;  the  drama  is  unknown  on 
genuine  Semitic  soil,  especially  in  ancient  times,  and  such 
converse  between  the  bridal  pair  as  is  assumed  in  the  Canticles 
is    unheard   of.      It    seems    a  far  more  natural   theory  that 

*  Recently,  to  mention  only  the  most  important,  by  Stickel  (Berl.,  1888), 
Bruston  (Paris,  1891),  Herzog  (Berl.,  1893),  Martineau  (in  the  American  Journal 
of  Philology,  xiii.  3),  and,  in  an  exceedingly  interesting  way,  by  Ilothstein 
(Halle,  1893). 


150  §   G.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

Canticles  consists  of  a  number  of  distinct  love-songs,  whether 
by  one  or  by  several  poets.  But  tlie  riddle  seems  to  us  to 
have  been  completely  solved  by  the  explanations  which 
Wetstein"^  has  given,  founded  on  his  own  observation  of 
customs  still  in  vogue  amongst  the  Arabic  population  in  Syria 
and  Palestine.  According  to  it  Canticles  contain  marriage- 
songs  (or  fragments  of  such)  as  they  are  sung  on  the  wedding- 
day  and  the  next  seven  days,  partly  to  the  accompaniment  of 
song  and  dances,  by  the  bridesmen,  the  chorus  of  men  and 
women,  and  the  young  pair  themselves.  These  seven  days 
are  called  "The  King's  Week,''  because  the  young  bride- 
groom and  the  young  wife  during  this  time  plaj''  the  parts  of 
king  and  queen,  and  receive  the  homage  of  the  entire 
district  and  even  of  the  neighbouring  places,  seated  on  a  kind 
of  throne  which  is  erected  for  them  as  a  seat  of  honour  on 
the  threshing-floor.  It  is  remarkable  how  many  enigmatic 
passages  of  the  Canticles  {e.g.,  vii.  1  ff.,  as  the  accompaniment 
of  the  bride's  sword-dance)  are  explained  in  an  extremely 
simple  fashion  on  this  assumption.  Amongst  other  things  it 
thus  becomes  self-evident  that  neither  has  Solomon,  iii.  7  ff., 
anything  to  do  with  the  Solomon  of  history,  nor  is  Shulamite 
(vii.  1)  a  proper  name.  Both  designations  are  meant  as 
comparisons,  and  in  fact,  Shulamite  (in  the  Greek  Bible 
'^Shunamite")  is  an  allusion  to  that  Abishag  of  Shunemf  who 
was  appointed,  as  the  most  beautiful  virgin  then  in  Israel, 
to  attend  on  the  old  man  David.  Budde's  very  true  remark 
(at  the  close  of  the  English  Essay  mentioned  below)  deserves 
special  attention  :  all  sorts  of  objectionable  things  in  the 
Canticles  must  seem  far  more  harmless  and  unexceptionable 

*  First  in  the  Zeitschr.  der  deutschen  morgenl.  Gesellsch.,  1868,  p.  105  f.,  then 
in  the  essay  on  "Die  Syrische  Dreschtafel,"  in  Bastian's  Zeitschrift  fiir  Eth- 
nographie  (1873),  and  in  Delitzsch'  Kommentariiber  das  Hohelied  (Lpzg.,  1875), 
p.  162  ff.  Budde,  in  "  The  Song  of  Solomon"  (New  World,  1894,  p.  56 ff.).  as 
well  as  in  the  Preussischen  Jahrbb.,  Oct.,  1891,  p.  92  ff.,  makes  additional 
contributions  to  the  explanation,  founded  on  Wetstein's  hypothesis. 

t  Stade,  in  the  Gesch.  Israels,  i.  292,  gave  this  unquestionably  right  explana- 
tion of  the  only  once  used  name :  see  the  more  detailed  proof  in  Budde,  loc.  cit.y 
p.  63  f. 


THE    MONUMENTS    OP    THE    'SviSDOM    LITERATURE/'  151 

if  tliey  belong  to  tlie  class  of  ancient  wedding  customs  and 
songs.  For  lingaistic  reasons,  and  especially  on  account  of 
tlie  use  of  various  Greek  words,  the  former  part  of  the  Greek 
period  is  the  earliest  to  wliich  these  marriage-songs  can  be 
assigned. 


8.  The  Monuments  op  the  '^  Wisdom    Literature/' 
a.  Proverbs. 

We  must  devote  a  final  section  to  the  monuments  of  the 
so-called  Chokma  {=  Wisdom)  Literature  which  have  found 
admission  to  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.  Here  we  leave 
the  question  untouched  whether  "  the  wise  ''  formed  a  special 
guild  in  pre-exiiic  times  (alongside  the  priests  and  prophets). 
Jer.  xviii.  18  makes  this  highly  probable,  and  certainly  it  was 
so  in  post-exilic  times,  as  all  kinds  of  clear  traces  show  (cf. 
especially  Prov.  i.  6,  xiii.  14,  xxii.  17,  xxiv.  3,  Eccles.  xii.  11). 
W^e  are  indeed  left  almost  entirely  in  the  dark  as  to  the 
formation  and  constitution  of  these  societies,  the  extent  and  the 
methods  of  their  investigation.  Thus  much  only  is  clear  from 
numerous  passages  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  (i.  4,  8,  ii.  1,  iii.  1, 
iv.  1,  &c.)  :  the  activity  of  the  wise  was  devoted  not  only  to 
consultations  and  discussions  amongst  themselves,  but 
principally  to  the  guidance  of  the  young  (the  "  Sons,  i.e., 
Pupils  of  the  Wise^').  But  the  Wisdom  Books  preserved  in 
the  Old  Testament  do  at  least  give  us  some  information 
respecting  the  subjects  of  their  inquiry  and  teaching.  The 
religion  of  Israel  inherited  from  their  fathers,  is  everywhere 
the  foundation  and  pre-supposition,  for  ^'  the  fear  of  Jahweh  is 
the  beginning — it  might  also  be  rendered,  the  main  thing  in — • 
knowledge  "  !  (Prov.  i.  7).  But  the  ceremonial  side  of  the 
religion,  and  with  it  the  dependence  on  the  priestly  law,  is 
almost  entirely  in  the  background :  hence  the  prophetic 
tendenc}^  comes  to  the  front.  But  this  is  the  weightiest  point : 
the  religion  on  which  Wisdom  builds  is  no  longer  (cf.  above. 


152  §   G.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

p.  148)  an  affair  of  the  people  as  a  whole  but  of  the  individuaL 
The  teachings  of  Wisdom,  the  solution  of  the  problems  with 
which  it  deals,  are  to  ser^e  as  guide-posts  to  direct  the 
individual  in  wisely  ordering,  and  really  enjoying  his  life,  and 
also  for  the  quieting  of  painful  doubts,  the  giving  assurance  as 
to  comforting  truths  which  concern  individual  human  souls. 
More  closely  considered  the  three  Old  Testament  Wisdom- 
books  occupy  themselves  with  the  following  topics  :  Proverbs, 
with  all  kinds  of  isolated  rules  for  the  conduct  of  life ;  the 
Book  of  Job,  with  a  religious-philosophical  discussion  of  the 
highest  importance ;  finally  Ecclesiastes,  with  the  question 
whether  a  complete  theory  of  the  world  in  general  is  possible. 
Chaps.  X.  1 — xxii.  16  are  doubtless  to  be  considered  the  kernel 
of  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  At  the  head  of  this  parb  stands  the 
title,  "  The  Proverbs  of  Solomon,^'  which  was  afterwards  (i.  1) 
transferred  to  the  whole  book.  It  proves  that  there  was  an 
ancient  tradition,  testified  to  at  1  Kings  v.  9  ff.  also,  that 
Solomon  was  the  prototype  of  the  "wise,^^  and,  in  particular, 
was  the  founder  of  Proverbial  Wisdom.  It  is,  indeed, 
altogether  uncertain  how  many  of  the  375*  verses,  mainly 
in  so-called  antithetic  (contrasted)  parallelism,  are  to  be 
attributed  to  Solomon  himself  (cf.  the  remark  above,  p.  13). 
''The  Words  of  the  Wise,''  chaps,  xxii.  17— xxiv.  22,  form 
the  first  appendix  to  this;  the  twelve  verses,  xxiv.  23-31,  the 
second.  These,  too,  so  far  as  the  title  is  concerned,  make  no 
claim  to  have  been  written  by  Solomon.  There  is  a  second 
pi'incipal  collection  in  chaps,  xxv.  1 — xxix.  27,  with  the  title, 
"  These  also  are  proverbs  of  Solomon  which  the  men  of 
Hezekiah,  King  of  Judah,  copied  out.''  We  cannot  deter- 
mine the  source  of  this  statement,  which  must  be  due  to 
a  later  redactor,  because  of  the  "  also."  The  frequent  occur- 
rence of  the  same  proverbs  in  both  divisions  is  against 
the    theory    that    ''the    men    of     Hezekiah"    in    this    way 

*  Behnke  (Zeitschr.  fiir  die  Alttest.  Wissenscb.,  1896,  p.  122)  remarks  that 
375  is  the  numerical  value  of  the  consonants  of  ShHovwh  (Solomon,  cf.  x.  1)  : 
in  like  manner  136,  the  number  of  verses  in  the  second  collection,  is  the  value 
of  the  consonants  of  the  name  CJiizqiyaltu  (Hezekiah ;  cf.  xxv.  1). 


THE    MONUMENTS    OF    THE    "  WISDOM    LITERATURE."  153 

appended  tlieir  own  collection  to  the  first  principal  collection 
of  Solomonic  proverbs  (over  100  of  the  511  proverbs  in 
the  entire  book  occur  more  than  once).  Moreover,  it  will 
be  shown  below  that  we  must  recognize  a  final  revision  of 
this  part  in  the  post-exilic  age.  There  are  the  following 
appendices  to  the  second  main  collection:  —  1.  The  Words 
of  Agur,  the  son  of  Jakeh  (chap.  xxx.).  2.  The  Words  of 
King  Lemuel  (xxxi.  1-7.)  3.  The  Alphabetical  Praise  o£ 
the  Virtuous  Housewife  (xxxi.  10-31).  The  assertion  of 
Jewish  tradition  that  Agur  and  Lemuel  are  mystical  designa- 
tions of  Solomon  is  disproved  at  once  by  the  linguistic 
character  of  those  proverbs,  which  points  rather  to  the  later 
post-exilic  time. 

After  the  collection  of  which  we  have  been  speaking,  or,  at 
all  events,  the  greater  part  of  x.-xxix.  had  been  fini.shed,  the 
prologue  (i.-ix.)  was  added.  It  begins  with  a  common  title 
and  short  introduction  to  the  whole  book  (i.  1-G)  :  then  it 
proceeds,,  partly  with  general  exhortations  to  the  appro- 
priation of  Wisdom,  referring  constantly  to  its  blessed  fruits, 
partly  with  warnings  against  various  distinct  sins  and  follies  ; 
it  concludes  with  an  impressive  address  by  Wisdom  herself, 
in  which  she  solemnly  invites  to  the  meal  which  she  has 
prepared  (chap.  viii.  f.).  This  conclusion  especially,  w^ith  its 
peculiar  personification  of  Wisdom,  presupposes  a  long  culti- 
vation of  speculation  on  the  philosophy  of  religion,  and  the 
close  of  our  present  Book  of  Proverbs  must  therefore  be 
placed  not  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 
The  numerous  additions  in  the  Greek  translation  of  proverbs 
from  other  sources  also  show  that  after  our  Canonical  Book  of 
Proverbs  had  assumed  its  fixed  form  pains  were  still  taken  to 
extend  and  to  alter  it.  We  must  also  recognize  that  final  revi- 
sion of  the  older  collections  which  has  been  indicated  above, 
for  in  no  other  way  can  we  explain  the  entire  absence  of  any 
allusion  to  idolatry.  Reuss  has  also  correctly  alleged  as 
a  mark  of  the  post-exilic  age  the  manner  in  which  monogamy 
is  everywhere  taken  for  granted. 

The   assertion  that  the  Proverbs,  like  a  great  part  of  the 


154  §  6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

Psalms,  promoted  "  Religion  in  Life/^  requires  a  certain 
•qualification.  Alongside  the  many  proverbs  in  wliicli  a  pro- 
foundly religious  disposition  finds  such  splendid  expression, 
as,  e.g.,  xxxi.  30,  there  is  also  a  series  which  recommends 
rules  for  wise  and  even  for  merely  prudent  life,  simply  on 
the  ground  of  a  large  experience.  Common  apophthegms, 
too,  and  actually  a  kind  of  riddle  (xxx.  15  fF.),  are  not  lack- 
ing :  the  poetry  of  culture  (especially  in  the  choice  collection, 
■chap.  XXV.  ff.)  preponderates  over  popular  poetry,  the  proverb 
in  the  narrower  sense  of  the  word.  But  the  contents  are 
nowhere  such  as  to  contradict  the  religious  and  moral 
key-note  which  is  heard  throughout. 


h.  The  Book  of  Job. 

Amidst  all  the  controversy  as  to  the  date  and  aim  of  the 
Book  of  Job,  there  is  one  point  on  which  absolute  unanimity 
has  ever  prevailed  :  here  we  have  one  of  the  most  magnificent 
creations  of  which  the  literary  history  of  all  times  and  all 
nations  can  tell,  a  creation  so  unique  that  an  idle  contest 
might  ever  be  breaking  out  anew  as  to  the  precise  class  of 
■poetry  in  which  it  is  to  be  enrolled.  And  if  in  other  didactic 
poems — for  in  any  case  the  Book  of  Job  is  such — it  is  inevit- 
able that  the  artistic  form  should  suffer  from  the  doctrinal 
aim,  the  Book  of  Job  has  not  called  forth  such  a  criticism 
from  anyone.  The  construction  of  the  poem,  as  well  as  the 
solution  of  the  problem,  takes  place  before  our  eyes  in  such 
.a  fashion  that  (apart,  of  course,  from  some  later  additions),  we 
never  trace  a  falling  oif  in  the  poet's  creative  power:  on  the 
contrary  his  speech  displays  its  most  impressive  force  at  the 
end  of  the  poem  in  the  speeches  of  Jahweh. 

The  problem  itself  is  none  other  than  the  question  which 
nicludes  all  that  can  be  objected  against  the  moral  character 
-of  the  government  of  the  Avorld  and  the  Divine  ordering  of 
human  fortunes  :  "  How  is  the  suffering  of  the  godly  to  be 
reconciled  with  the  righteousness  of  God  ?  '^  This,  of  course, 
does  not  deal  with  the  troubles  which  the  mere  fact  of  being 


WISDOM    LITERATURE."  155 

a  man  brings  on  every  one  without  exception;  all  kinds  of 
dangers,  occasionally  sickness  and  privation,  manifold  vexa- 
tions and  failures,  death  at  the  last.  The  question  rather  is : 
"  How  can  God  so  often  permit  really  godly  men  to  be 
attacked  with  the  sorest  affliction  of  body  and  soul,  leaving 
them  to  bear  it  in  utter  hopelessness  to  the  end,  whereas,  on 
the  other  side,  it  is  an  indisputable  fact  that  open  despisers 
of  God  have  often  enjoyed  to  the  end  great  and  undisturbed 
happiness.  Where,  then,  does  Keason  come  in  in  the  order 
of  the  world  ?     Where  does  Divine  Righteousness  abide  ?  '^ 

This  ceases  to  be  a  problem  the  moment  that  faith  asserts 
itself  in  a  future  solution  of  all  riddles,  a  righteous  compensation 
hereafter,  as  is  the  case  on  the  ground  of  the  Christian  hope 
of  immortality.  But  the  religion  of  Israel  knew  nothing  of 
such  a  hope  for  the  individual.  It  must  suffice  him  if  he 
attained  to  the  natural  limit  of  human  life,  and  was  not  cut 
off  ^^in  the  midst  of  the  years."  After  that  he  became  the 
property  of  the  grave,  and  his  unsubstantial  shadow  went 
down  to  the  Underworld,  and  remained  for  ever  unrelated  to 
God  and  to  the  sorrow  and  joy  of  the  world  above. 

So  long  as  religion,  in  accordance  with  what  vv^e  have  said 
above,  was  indissolubly  bound  up  with  the  needs,  the  fears 
and  hopes  of  the  nation  as  a  whole,  the  problem  treated  in 
the  Book  of  Job  could  not  be  felt  in  all  its  difficulty. 
Astounding  experiences,  therefore,  whether  of  the  whole 
nation  or  its  individual  members,  did  not  cause  men  to  take 
umbrage  at  the  righteousness  of  God;  the  immediate  future 
would,  perhaps,  provide  a  solution,  whether  the  smitten  ones 
themselves  experienced  it  or  not.  But  it  was  different  when 
such  problems  began  to  be  solved  on  what  might  be  called 
independent  ground,  as  problems  of  human  life  in  general, 
outside  the  limits  of  the  nation.  Then  first  could  he  who 
believed  in  a  Divine  righteousness  feel  the  inequality  in  men's 
fortunes  to  be  a  tormenting  riddle.  But  he  would  be  obliged, 
in  the  same  measure,  to  look  upon  all  earlier  attempts  to  quiet 
doubt  and  solve  the  riddle  as  unprofitable  evasions. 

The  question  must  have  stood  thus  when  the  poet  of  Job 


15G  §   6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

undertook  its  solution — certainly  not  for  the  sole  reason  that 
a  special  inclination  towards  philosophical  speculation  attracted 
him  towards  it,  but  because  his  inmost  heart,  his  whole 
religious  personality,  was  most  mightily  laid  hold  of  by  it.  Nor 
does  he  seek  the  solution  in  the  way  of  didactic  exposition  and 
demonstration,  but  clothes  it  with  the  outlines  of  a  history; 
sets  the  problem,  as  it  were,  in  personal  form  before  our 
eyes,  and  illuminates  it  on  all  sides  from  widely  different 
standpoints,  till  at  length  the  mouth  of  God  pronounces  the 
decision. 

The  external  organization — we  might  almost  say  the  dramatic 
structure — of  the  poem  is  extremely  simple  and  clear.  The 
prose  Prologue  (chaps,  i.  and  ii.)  shows  in  Job  a  pattern  of 
exemplary  earthly  happiness,  and  also  of  exemplary  piety. 
The  man  who  offers  propitiatory  sacrifices  for  sins  which  his 
children  may  possibly  have  committed  is  a  really  godly  person ; 
God  Himself  repeatedly  bears  testimony  to  this  (i.  8,  ii.  3). 
The  question  as  to  what  tradition  really  said  about  Job,  who 
is  here  represented  as  the  owner  of  great  herds  in  the  land 
of  Uz,  is  altogether  trivial  and  without  bearing  on  the 
understanding  of  the  book.  We  merely  know  from  Ezekiel 
(xiv.  14,  20),  who  mentions  him  along  with  Noah  and  Danieb 
that  his  was  one  of  those  names  of  the  past  which  were 
famous  for  their  godliness.  Our  poet  evidently  means  him 
and  his  friends  to  be  thought  of  as  non-Israelites :  the  problem 
is  to  be  discussed  outside  the  national  soil  of  the  religion  of 
Israel.  Naturally,  this  does  not  prevent  specifically  Israelite 
views  and  postulates  of  faith  from  appearing  everywhere^ 
more  or  less  involuntarily.  Yet  the  fiction  is  so  far  strictly 
adhered  to,  that  not  only  the  proper  name  of  the  God  of 
Israel  (Jahweh),  but  every  direct  reference  to  the  history 
of  the  people,  is  avoided  in  the  poetical  part  of  the  book. 

The  dramatic  movement  in  the  working  out  of  the  problem 
begins  with  the  first  assault  which  the  Satan — a  name 
suggested  probably  by  the  poetical  use  of  it  at  Zech.  iii.  1 — • 
i.e.,  the  Adversary,  makes,  attempting  to  cast  suspicion  on 
the  unselfishness   and  so  on  the  moral  value  of  Job's  piety. 


THE    MONUMENTS    OF    THE    "WISDOM    LITERATURE."  157 

God  allows  Satan  to  subject  Job's  external  good  fortune  to 
a  trial.  He  knows  tliat  it  must  end  in  the  vindication  of  His 
servant.  Swift  strokes  of  ruin  fall  on  Job  from  every  quarter: 
in  one  day  all  Ins  riches  vanish.  He  holds  his  peace  till  the 
news  of  the  loss  of  all  his  children  comes  suddenly  upon  him. 
Then  he  complies  with  the  customary  observances  of  sorrow, 
uttering  at  the  same  time  words  of  prayer,  the  quiet  grandeur 
of  which  cannot  be  enhanced  by  any  addition  or  comment. 

Satan's  second  assault  moves  God  to  abandon  Job's  body, 
but  not  his  life,  to  a  final  trial.  Job  is  attacked  by  a  horrible, 
distressing,  painful,  and  altogether  hopeless  disease.  All  the 
symptoms  show  that  the  form  of  leprosy  known  as  elephantiasis 
is  meant.  Still  he  maintaias  his  position  with  pious  resigna- 
tion against  the  bitter  mockery  of  his  own  wife.  But  when 
his  three  friends  have  appeared  and  sat  down  in  silence  over 
against  him  seven  days  and  nights,  the  grief  which  rages 
within  gets  the  mastery  at  last.  He  breaks  the  silence  with 
a  monologue,  in  wdiich  he  most  vehemently  curses  the  day  of 
his  birth,  praises  the  earliest  possible  death  as  an  enviable 
good  fortune,  and  finally,  sinking  into  melancholy,  depicts 
the  sweet  rest  and  the  equality  of  all  who  dwell  in  the 
Underworld. 

The  Prologue  has,  nob  improperly,  been  compared  with  the 
"Development"  in  a  drama;  and  this  "Development"  is  so 
masterly  that  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  it  could  ever 
have  been  explained  as  a  later  addition  to  the  original  poem. 
By  means  of  it  the  poet,  with  conscious  art,  has  accomplished 
something  which,  quite  apart  from  the  increase  of  our  artistic 
enjoyment  of  the  poem,  is  also  important  for  a  right  estimate 
of  its  religious  value.  The  reader  is  placed  at  the  outset  on 
a  firm  and  sure  standpoint,  from  which  he  can  observe  the 
wavering  conflict  with  most  vivid  sympath}^,  but  without  con- 
fusion. From  the  facts  of  which  he  has  been  told,  he  knows 
what  Job  and  his  friends  do  not  know,  that  there  are  sufferings 
the  reasons  of  which  do  not  lie  in  the  punitive  wrath  of  God, 
but  in  His  purpose  of  love.  That  is  not  a  solution  of  the 
problem;  we  still  miss  the  answer  to  the  question  how  God's 


158  §  6.    THE    POST-EXILIC    PERIOD. 

purpose  of  love  can  permit  sucli  an  infliction  of  pain  on  His 
own.  Yet  it  is  a  significant  sign-post,  indicating  that  in  the 
issue  of  the  dispute  upright  piety  must  at  last  vanquish 
prejudice  and  stupidity. 

Job^s  first  monologue  (chap,  iii.),  which  has  brought  us  into 
the  poetical  part  of  the  book  (chaps,  iii.-xlii.  6),  is  followed  by 
the  controversies,  chaps,  iv.-xxviii.  Each  of  the  friends  speaks 
three  times,  in  the  same  order,  to  be  immediately  refuted  each 
time  by  Job.  But  in  the  third  colloquy  (xxii.-xxvi.),  the 
material  at  the  disposal  of  the  friends  is  found  to  be  so 
exhausted  that  Bildad,  the  second,  contents  himself  with 
a  brief  embarrassed  repetition  of  what  has  been  said  long 
before,  and  Zophar,  the  third,  is  quite  silent.  The  standpoint 
of  the  friends  is  that  of  the  current  doctrine  of  retribution, 
in  the  form  which  had  developed  out  of  the  distortion  of  the 
great  truth  proclaimed  at  Exod.  xx.  5  f .  There  the  ungodly 
are  promised  vengeance  on  their  sins  to  the  fourth  generation; 
the  pious,  God's  blessing  to  the  thousandth  generation.  The- 
popular  view  distorted  this  to  mean  that  all  sufferings  are 
punishments,  whilst  continued  good  fortune  is  the  reward  of 
conduct  pleasing  to  God.  From  immense  suffering  they 
logically  deduced  immense  guilt ;  from  special  judgments,, 
touching  the  body  of  the  supposed  pious  man,  secret  faulti- 
ness.  Hence  the  friends  at  first  accuse  the  sufferer  covertly, 
but,  at  last  (xxii.  4ff.),  quite  expressly,  of  having  merited 
God's  judgment  by  his  sin.  They  endeavour  to  weaken  Job's 
constant  reference  to  those  experiences  of  happiness  and 
suffering,  which  do  not  correspond  with  their  theory,  by 
pretending  that  all  the  sinner^s  prosperity  is  only  apparent 
and  is  destined  to  be  suddenly  shattered. 

Job  does  not  attempt  to  deny  that  he  is  a  sinner  in  the 
sense  in  which  all  men  are ;  but  he  is  conscious  that  he  has 
pursued  an  upright,  pious  course  in  thought,  word  and  deed. 
The  reference  to  universal  human  sinfulness  cannot,  there- 
fore, in  any  way  explain  the  enigma  of  his  fate.  The  assertion 
of  the  friends  that  they  have  explained  it  is  self-deception  and 
malice.     Convinced  of  this,  Job  talks  himself  into  such  bitter- 


THE    MONUMENTS    OF   THE    "  WISDOM    LITERATURE/'  159' 

ness  in  the  first  colloquy  that  his  speeches  several  times 
(cf.  especially  ix.  22  f.)  approacli  very  near  to  blasphemy. 
But  in  his  inmost  soul  his  faith  holds  fast  to  that  imao-c  of 
the  wise  and  just  God  which  he  has  borne  in  his  heart  so 
many  years ;  in  fact,  he  comes  at  last  to  invoke  the  Heavenly 
Witness  of  his  innocence,  the  righteous  God,  to  be  his  helper 
against  the  incomprehensible  God  who  torments  him  without 
cause  (xvi.  18  ft'.).  He  struggles  through  to  the  rock-firm 
certainty  (xix.  23 ff .)  that  God  will  at  last  take  his  part  and 
bring  his  innoceuce  to  light.  With  such  a  certainty  of  vic- 
tory, he  gradually  reduces  to  silence  the  attacks  of  his  friends; 
but  this  does  not  bring  him  to  a  solution  of  the  riddle  itself. 
The  concludiug  speech  (chap,  xxvii.  f.)  only  reaches  the  result 
that  God's  doings  are  in  any  case  Wisdom,  but  that  He  has 
kept  this  exclusively  for  Himself,  and  has  merely  given  man 
such  a  share  in  it  as  finds  expression  in  the  fear  of  God  and 
the  avoidance  of  evil.  As  against  the  riddles  of  the  course  of 
the  world,  especially  sucJl  experiences  as  Job  had  to  under o-o, 
there  is  nothing  but  a  painful  despair  of  winniug  knowledge. 
This  being  his  view,  Job's  thoughts  are  again  taken  up 
sorrowfully  with  his  former  happiness  and  dignity  (chap,  xxix.)  ; 
he  contrasts  with  it  his  present  unutterable  misery,  and  then 
examines  his  past  life  (chap,  xxx.)  from  a  standpoint  the  moral 
elevation  of  which  reminds  us  in  many  ways  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount.  He  had  made  no  reply  to  the  direct  accusations  of 
Eliphaz  (in  chap,  xxii.)  :  now  the  answer  follows,  and  in  a 
form  which  leaves  but  the  one  thought  with  the  reader,  that 
God  must  now  indeed  interpose  for  the  sufferer  and  confirm 
the  truth  of  his  assertions.  Job  himself  at  the  close  solemnly 
summons  Him,  and  his  expectation  is  not  disappointed. 

But  God's  reply  to  him  (xxxviii.  1  ff .)  ^  out  of  the  thunder- 
storm is  something  quite  different  from  what  he  had  repeatedl}' 
desired  during  the  discussion,  and,  in  part,  had  actually 
pictured  to  himself.  A  questioning  and  answering  (xiii.  22) 
had  hovered  before  his  mind's  eye,  an  occasion  on  which  he 

*   On   the  subsequently  interpolated  Elihu-Speeches   (chaps,  xxxii.-xxxvii.). 
see  more  below. 


160  §  6.    THE    POST-EXILTC    PERIOD. 

could  not  only  justify  himself  to  God  but  God  to  Mm.  Here, 
too,  the  poet  displays  all  his  greatness.  Instead  of  a  judicial 
process,  which  in  any  case  must  seem  unworthy  of  God,  he 
introduces  God  teaching  the  man,  in  a  speech  full  of  lofty 
irony,  the  foolishness,  nay,  the  childishness  of  his  demand. 
But  the  irony  is  not  an  annoying,  absolutely  repelling  one. 
It  aims  simply  at  bringing  the  deeply  wounded  man  into  the 
right  condition  for  the  sure  and  speedy  healing  of  his  wound. 
And  the  solution  of  the  riddle  given  in  these  Divine  speeches 
is  so  clear  and  simple  and  thorough  that  no  one  who  does  not 
intentionally  close  his  eyes  can  miss  it.  The  God  who  from 
the  beginning  has  ruled  His  creation  with  infinite  glory  and 
wisdom,  ordering  all  things  wisely,  providing  lovingly  for  every 
longing  of  the  irrational  creatures  (xxxviii.  41  fF.),  can  cherish 
towards  man  also  nothing  but  thoughts  full  of  wisdom  and  love, 
although  his  ways  may  often  be  incomprehensible  to  human 
minds.  If  a  proof  were  still  needed  that  the  poet  wished  to 
convey  this  teaching  in  the  speeches  of  Jahweh  it  would  be 
furnished  by  Job's  answer  (xl.  4f.  and  xlii.  3ff.)-  He  recants 
•and  repents  in  dust  and  ashes,  not  because  he  has  learnt  that 
ive  must  once  for  all  despair  of  comprehending  God^s  wa3^s — 
that  knowledge  he  had  reached  previously — but  because  God's 
appearance  at  the  end  had  brought  the  assurance  that  the 
good  man  may  ever  take  comfort  in  the  wise  and  loving 
guidance  of  his  God,  notwithstanding  every  appearance  to  the 
contrarj^.  This  is  the  only  view  with  which  the  Epilogue 
xlii.  7  ff.  (again  in  prose)  agrees. 

The  form  which  Job  had  wished  justice  to  assume  was 
unsuitable.  But  when  he  had  humbled  himself  it  is  expressly 
admitted  that  he  is  perfectly  right  in  not  yielding  against  his 
own  better  knowledge  and  conscience  to  the  unloving  prejudice 
of  his  opponents.  In  fact,  at  their  burnt-offering  they  need 
his  intercession  to  avert  the  righteous  anger  of  God.  The 
complete  re-establishment  of  Job's  external  prosperity 
(xlii.  10  ff.)  is,  of  course,  not  a  necessary  element  in  the 
solution  of  the  problem,  but  only  a  demand  of  "poetic  justice." 
The  reader's  feelings  require  this  demonstration  that  even 


IGl 

in  tlie  concrete  case  to  whicli  the  poet  lias  attaclied  the 
discussion  and  solution  of  the  problem  all  controversy  was 
at  length  hushed  in  perfect  harmony. 

Objections  of  some  importance  have  been  raised  against  the 
authenticity  of  some  sections  (especially  xxvii.  7 — xxviii.  28, 
and  the  descriptions  of  the  hippopotamus  and  crocodile,  xl.  15 — 
xli.  26).  But,  with  the  exception  perhaps  of  chap,  xxviii., 
our  idea  of  the  w^hole  is  not  affected  by  them.  The  same 
cannot  be  said  of  the  Elihu-Speeches,  chaps,  xxxii.-xxxvii. 
These  stand  in  absolutely  irreconcilable  opposition  to  the  aim 
of  all  the  rest  of  the  poem.  After  Job's  last  great  monologue, 
to  which  God's  answer,  xxxviii.  1,  immediately  attaches  itself, 
Elihu  enters  suddenly  upon  the  scene  in  order  that,  in  four 
speeches  addressed  personally  to  Job,  and  differing  very  con- 
spicuously from  all  the  others  even  in  form,  he  may  read  both 
the  friends  and  Job  a  lessoji.  The  former,  because  they  could 
find  no  further  answer ;  Job,  because  he  dared  to  maintain 
that  he  was  pure,  instead  of  recognizing  that  his  suffering  was 
ordained  by  God  for  a  wholesome  discipline.  We  have  already 
mentioned  that  in  the  heat  of  the  dispute  Job  says  what 
must  needs  wound  a  pious  and  reverent  spirit.  The  author  of 
the  Elihu-Speeches  was  evidently  offended  because  no  one 
expressly  and  fitly  corrected  Job  for  this.  But  the  idea  that 
Job  was  so  terribly  punished  beforehand  for  guilt  which  he 
contracted  in  consequence  of  his  sufferings  is  utterly  absurd, 
and  therefore  it  certainly  did  not  occur  to  the  original  poet, 
as  we  may  see  from  i.  8,  ii.  3,  and,  rightly  understood,  also 
from  xlii.  7.  That  the  speeches  are  interpolated  is  also  clear 
from  the  fact  that,  in  the  further  course  of  the  poem,  not 
the  slightest  notice  is  taken  of  this  new  champion. 

As  to  the  date  when  the  book  was  composed,  opinions  have 
varied  between  the  pre-Mosaic  and  the  Maccabaaan  age.  The 
many  points  of  contact  with  Lamentations,  Deutero-Isaiah, 
and,  most  especially,  with  the  Prologue  to  the  Proverbs,  are 
not  quite  conclusive  in  favour  of  its  belonging  to  the  later, 
post-exilic  age :  for  we  usually  assign  the  priority  to  the  one 
side  or  the  other,  according  to  the  judgment  we  have  formed 

11 


162  §  6.    THE    rOST-EXILlC    PERIOD. 

on  other  grounds,  thougli  a  doubt  may  hardly  be  possible 
concerning  such  passages  asxlii.  17  compared  with  Gren.  xxv.  8, 
XXXV.  29.  There  is  still  a  dispute_,  too,  concerning  the 
linguistic  character  of  the  book,  although  all  kinds  of  indica- 
tions of  later  speech  are  universally  recognized.  But,  in  the 
first  place,  it  is  an  important  fact  that,  according  to  what  we 
have  said  on  p.- 155,  the  problem  could  not  have  been  handled 
in  this  form  till  the  individualistic  treatment  of  religious 
questions  had  been  freely  cultivated.  And,  secondly,  the 
angels  appear  in  the  Book  of  Job  in  a  form  which  vividly 
reminds  us  of  the  Book  of  Daniel.  They  are  called  absolutely 
^•"the  holy  ones^^  (cf.  Dan.  iv.  14),  although,  according  to 
iv.  18,  XV.  15,  they  are  subject  to  error  and  even  to  sin,  and, 
according  to  xxi.  22,  xxv.  2,  they  need  the  judicial  inter- 
jDosition  of  God.  On  the  other  hand,  they  can  intervene  with 
intercessions  for  men  (v.  1),  as,  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  the 
various  nations  are  represented  by  special  guardian-angels, 
hostile  to  each  other.  No  doubt  it  is  impossible  to  decide 
with  certainty  when  these  views  became  common  property  in 
Israel,  and  therefore  we  will  not  conceal  the  fact  that  dis- 
tinguished students  still  date  the  book  much  earlier — about 
500,  or  in  the  Babylonian  Exile,  or  even  in  the  period  just 
prior  to  the  Exile. 

c.  Ecclesiastes. 
If  the  "  Wisdom  '^  of  the  Old  Testament  celebrated  its  loftiest 
triumph  in  the  Book  of  Job,  by  solving  a  definite  religious 
problem,  "  The  Preacher,^^  on  the  contrary,  must  be  styled  the 
final  abandonment  of  the  attempt  to  solve  the  riddle  of  existence 
with  the  means  furnished  by  the  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament, 
i.e.,  above  all  else,  without  faith  in  a  future  compensation. 
The  author's  putting  his  doctrine  into  the  mouth  of  Solomon, 
the  prototype  of  all  wise  men,  and  all  striving  after  Wisdom, 
is  a  very  transparent  literary  disguise  :  the  writer  himself 
betrays  its  true  character  at  i.  12.  And  the  repeated  bitter 
complaints  that  justice  is  badly  administered,  that  injustice 
indeed  prevails  in  the  world,  would  not  come  very  well  from 


THE    MONUMENTS    OF    THE    '^WISDOM    LITERATURE."  1G3 

a  reigniDg-  king.  The  tlieme  of  the  whole  is  expressed 
at  the  very  outset.  Everything  is  vain,  troublesome,  and  at 
the  same  time  aimless.  Yain  is  the  striving  after  Wisdom, 
like  that  after  property  and  pleasure.  Man  ever  stands 
powerless  in  the  presence  of  an  inevitable  and,  to  him,  incom- 
prehensible fate.  And  thus  the  only  profitable  counsel  which 
one  may  perhaps  venture  to  give  (v.  17,  &c.)  is  to  get  the 
better  of  the  misery  of  existence  by  enjoying  life  rationally, 
doing  this,  however,  in  the  fear  of  (xod,  and  with  an  abiding 
recollection  of  the  reckoning  which  He  demands. 

The  last-named  condition  shows  that  the  Preacher  is  far 
from  recommending  the  so-called  Epicureanism  as  the  highest 
worldly  wisdom.  The  keynote  of  his  reflections  is  rather  an 
ethically  earnest  one,  and  his  faith  in  God  shows  itself 
untouched  by  any  kind  of  doubt.  But  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  in  his  case  the  decay  of  the  Old  Testament  faitli  has 
made  much  progress,  so  that  he  vacillates  helplessly  from 
chagrin  to  doubt,  from  unsatisfactory  grounds  of  comfort  to 
worldly-wise  considerations.  We  can  nowhere  speak  of  a 
fixed  plan.  The  discourse  is  not  unfrequently  so  full  of 
contradictions  that  earnest  attempts  have  been  made  to 
understand  it  as  a  dialogue  between  a  doubting  disciple  and 
the  master  wdio  corrects  liim,  thus  setting  all  the  objections 
to  the  book  aside  at  a  stroke.  The  very  debased  Hebrew  and 
the  manifold  tokens  of  the  age  of  the  Diadochi  point  to  the 
middle  of  the  third  century  as  the  date  of  Ecclesiastes. 
Doubtless  it  owes  its  admission  to  the  Canon  in  face  of  great 
objections  chiefly  to  the  Epilogue  (xii.  9  ff.).  Though  added 
in  all  probability  by  another  hand,  this  seemed  adapted  to 
neutralize  the  objectionable  features  in  the  Preacher's 
deductions,  and  so  to  bring  everything  to  a  satisfactory  issue. 
However  that  may  be,  we  owe  thanks  to  the  compilers  of  the 
Old  Testament  Canon  for  not  excluding  even  this  book.  It 
proclaims  with  clear  voice  the  truth  which  was  obviously 
beyond  the  ken  both  of  its  author  and  of  the  compilers  of  the 
Canon,  that  in  it,  and  in  all  the  books  which  had  preceded, 
the  last  word  of  consolation  and  salvation  for  mankind  had 

11   * 


1G4  CONCLUDING    WORDS. 

not  yet  been  spoken.  They  all  are  but  forerunners  and 
preparers  of  the  way  of  that  infinitely  Greater  One  who  lias 
fjpoken  it. 


We  are  at  tlie  end.     But  we  ardently  desire^  at  the  conclu- 
sion_,  to  come  to   an  understanding  with  those  to  whom  the 
treatment  of  Old  Testament  Literature  in  this  Outline,  and, 
above  all,  the   dissection  of   the  books   and  documents  into 
various  constituents,  has  seemed  new  and  startling,  perhaps, 
indeed,  highly  objectionable.     In  large  circles  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Church  every  kind  of  inquiry  which  is  strictly  historical, 
and  therefore  critical,  is  still  regarded  as   a  ^^  wrangling  of 
science  falsely  so-called,"  the   outcome  of   a   conceited   and 
unbelieving     disposition,    w^hich     consciously    aims     at     the 
destruction  of  faith  in  the  Scriptures  and,  with  that,  of  the 
bronze  foundations  of  the  Churches  faith  as  a  whole.     If  there 
are  those  who  in   such  inquiries   seek  their  own -glory  and 
eagerly  drag  in  the  dust  what  is  holy  to  others,  they  have 
their  reward.     But  they  who  with  earnest  and  upright  soul 
strive  to  investigate  the  facts  concerning  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
so  far  as  these  are  accessible  to  human  knowledge,  need  no 
justification  of  their  conduct.     They  know  that  they  are  not 
bound    to    give    account   to    man,   but   to  God.     But  in   the 
interest  of  the  man}^,  who  for  the  sake  of  an  unscriptural  view 
of  Scripture  have  been  troubled  in  conscience,  three  simple 
truths  may  now  be  mentioned.     First,  the  experimental  truth, 
that  all  attempts  to  distort  or  contradict  historical  facts  for 
supposed  reasons  of  faith  have  hitherto  proved  ineffectual  in 
the  end.     There  was  a  time  when  the  allegorical  exposition 
of    Scripture  was  regarded  as  the  rightful  privilege,  in  fact 
the  sacred  duty,  of  a  really  orthodox  theology.     Our  age  no 
longer  admits  the  faintest  pretence  to  such  a  right.     There 
was  a  time  when  the  acknowledgment  that  the  Hebrew  vowel 
points  originated  at  the    same    time   as  the   consonants  was 
reckoned  amongst  the  signs  of  thorough  orthodoxy.     To-day 


CONCLUDING    WOKBS.  105 

sucli  an  acknowledgment  would  only  bo  taken  as  the  sign  of 
boorisli  ignorance.  May  tliat  other  time  not  be  far  distant 
when  the  useless  resistance  to  knowledge  which  can  no  longer 
bo  shaken  by  any  exegetical  devices  will  bo  universally  and 
tinally  abandoned  ! 

Secondly  ;  it  is  a  disingenuous  mode  of  fightings  to  point 
constantly  at  much  which  is  still  uncertain  and  disputed,  and 
thus  endeavour  to  keep  up  amongst  the  ignorant  the  impression 
that  no  scientific  Scripture  inquiry  has  ever  brought  anything 
to  light  except  subjective  opinions,  to-day  set  up,  to-morrow 
contradicted,  the  next  day  forgotten.  No  doubt  there  is  much 
that  is  uncertain,  much  indeed  which  will  never  be  determined. 
But  that  far  more  has  been  finally  settled  can  only  be  denied 
by  him  who  has  formed  his  opinion  without  a  glance  at  the 
actual  condition  of  scientific  inquiry.  Such  a  glance  renders 
impossible  the  odd  notion  that  hundreds  of  earnest  and  truth- 
seeking  men  have  agreed  on  a  number  of  results  purely  out 
of  the  spirit  of  contradiction  and  unbelief. 

And  thirdly  ;  the  demand  for  the  disavowal  of  actual  (not 
merely  imaginary  !)  historical  facts  and  certainties,  in  the 
supposed  interest  of  religious  faith,  is  a  gross  contradiction  of 
Evangelical  and  Eeformed  principles.  And  so  much  the  more 
when  faith  is  demanded  for  external  traditions  which — like 
the  late  Jewish  ones  in  question — are  demonstrably  tarnished 
in  so  many  ways  by  accidents  and  misunderstandings.  It  is 
therefore  a  simple  duty  of  Christian  truthfulness,  in  all  those 
cases  where  our  view  of  Holy  Scripture,  founded  on  those 
traditions,  conflicts  with  indisputable  facts,  not  to  deny  the 
facts,  but  to  reform  our  view  of  Scripture.  Every  other  way 
is  an  unbecoming  criticism  of  God,  to  whom  it  seemed  good 
that  thus,  and  not  otherwise.  His  revelations  to  Israel  and  the 
world  should  be  made  known.  And  not  only  unbecoming, 
but  also  shortsighted.  In  the  end  the  conviction  will  and 
must  make  way  that  the  theory  of  the  development  of  Old 
Testament  religion  maintained  by  a  great  number  of  Evan- 
gelical inquirers  of  the  present  day,  and  also  in  this  Outline, 
corresponds  not  only  with  the  facts  but  also  with  the  deepest 


166  CONCLUDING   WOHDS. 

interests  of  faith.  Blamed  by  opponents  as  ^'  Construction  of 
History/^  it  rather  seeks  to  trace  out  truly  the  methods  which. 
God  has  followed  with  the  chosen  people.  After  tolerating 
for  a  while  so  many  semi-heathen  elements  which  were  mingled 
with  the  religion  of  Israel  as  a  national  religion,  they  led  to 
ever-growing  clearness  respecting  the  true  and  final  ends 
of  God.  Prophetism  and  priestism_,  seemingly  contradictory 
tendencies,  had  to  join  in  helping  to  bring  Israel  to  those 
ends  for  the  salvation  of  the  world.  Prophetism  is  the  medium 
of  those  fundamental  ideas  of  the  sublime  dignity,  holiness 
and  righteousness,  the  grace  and  mercy,  also,  of  God,  the 
Lord  and  Judge  of  all  the  world.  The  Priestly  Law  provides 
the  vesture  without  which  these  ideas  could  not  fulfil  their 
work  of  educating  the  as  yet  immature  people.  And  the 
longer  the  Biblical  inquirer's  thought  is  absorbed  in  such 
contemplations  of  God's  ways,  the  more' willingly  will  he  join 
in  the  confession  witli  which  the  Apostle  closes  his  examin- 
ation of  that  Divine  mystery  which  is  involved  in  God's  ways 
with  Israel :  ''  0  the  depth,  of  the  riches  and  the  wisdom  and 
the  knowledge  of  God !  Of  Him  and  through  Him  and  unto 
Him  are  all  things.     To  Him  be  glory  for  ever  !     Amen.'' 


O 

Ph  H 

pq  ^ 

O  w 

E^  CO 

K  ^ 
«^ 


p  ^ 
Ph  pq 

r^  o 


CO 
CO 

^§ 

o  '^ 

o 

;^ 

o 

p^ 


y. 

H 
'A 

is 

w 

H 
Y. 

O 

High  culture  in  Egypt. 

Beginning  of  the  series  of 
Egyptian  Kings  with  ]\1  eua 
(Menes,  according  to  Ebers 
about  3892). 

The  Old  Kingdom  of  Mem- 
phis   at  its  prime,    under 
Snefcru,  Khufu  (Cheops), 
&c. 

Beginning     of     the      five 
hundred    years'    dominion 
of  the  Hyksos   (Shepherd 
Kings)  at'Tanis.     Gradual 
expulsion  of  the  Hj^ksos. 
The  New  Kingdom. 

Contemporary  Events 

in  the  assyrio- 
Babylonian  Empire. 

In  the  fourth  century 
kingdoms  of  the  Pro- 
to-Chalda)ans             in 
Babylonia,     with    the 
capitals    Uru    (Ur   of 
the       Bible),       Uruk 
(Erech,    Gen.   x.    10), 
Babila  (Gate  of  God), 
Accad,  Larsam,Kutha. 

Establishment  of  Semi- 
tic immigrants,   down 
to  about  3000. 

About   2250,  Babylon 
made  capital  of  Chal- 
da?a  by  Chammurabi. 

About   1900,   the  city 
of     Asshur      founded 
from     Babylon    (Gen. 
x.8f.). 

llisE  OF  THE  Monu- 
ments OF  Israelite 
Literature. 

! 

•A 

p4 

A  high  stage  of  culture  in  Syria  (including 
Palestine)   resulting  from   the    simul- 
taneous   influence    of    Egyptian    and 
Babylonian  culture. 

K    -J 

Before 

4000 

About 
3500 

About 
2000 

About 
IGOO 

168      CIIKONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTOKY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


o  o 

H 
S5 


~  .    t^    Ph 

Mrd  pi 
I— I  *^td 

M  ^^ 

r/i     ^     Q^ 


r  ^1 


vi  m  , — c 

o  o   a> 

c«  t«    o3 

CJ  o    ;h 


1- 

O) 

n-1 

Ph 

W3 

(U 

Ri 

^ 

o 

o 

cri 

PI 

Ol— 1 

P-l    O 


S  «  a 

ri    S3 


a  SR  a 

o  ii  o 

i-O         o 


ci 


O    5j 


^^  o  s  ^  ^ 


'O   r-H 


§•1 


02 


•%^  '-§0  .^ 

«3  o  S^"?^  -^  •<;  o 

o  ^-^  tt  Qj  "-^  ^  *-" 
^  ^      «^  atd  "=> 

<u  P   ^   fe   o  ^^ 

i^  ^3  ^^   ..^ 

— '  fi^-v  fl  fl  :i^  o 

V  fee  ^ 


a  f^M 


00   a>  • 


>^  en 


^^'^  P-o 


^     a     P_"     ^     ^     ■ 

O  -^    O    i=?    o  <1 
a 

-5l 


1  «+H     C3    -M 


_Q  "Tj  .^      Q  HH 

O 


be  OT 


C3    O 

rT-(     P3 

r    O 

^  a  a 
^-^^ 
"I 


pi 

rd  M     c« 

^  'S 

■-^  G 

O  e3 

r:  CO  p  >-' 

C3 


o  o 


oo 


po 

_Q  CO 


p  o 

O  (M 

<1^ 


J^ 


1500-1110. 

169 

ra    f-< 

-^  >-i 

■^   CJ 

o    ^ 

,X3 

o  J 

a    S 

bc"^ 

O    P^ 

flu 

.2  2 

r— 1  r-1  ^ 

n3 

P-^P 

^1 

"^c^       • 

■*^       t-4 

ea 

s-^l 

O         H-l 

O    CO 

—H      C3     OJ 

(73          cs 

c3 

p  U'E, 

rp   ;-._ 

o  rt  a 

O    !>»^ 

gII 

^  >>rt 

^    bC^ 

HfiW 

<1H<1 

*^     «>rd 

■B.i^ 

't:5 

*^rd   t^ 

p 

3    Vi 

03     ^1    -M 

e3 

ut   1150,  end 
dominion  of 
sites    in    No 

03 

ut  1120,  Tigl 
ser  I.  of  Assy 
ipaign  against 

p 
o 

o  ^^  =«  ^ 

o  <u  a 

"S^ 

r^     2.=^ 

erf 

rOrp  § 

-a 

03 

<iaMpq 

<1PMQOW 

6  6 

tfl^ 

a> 

■2  ^ 

3^ 

>—  o 

'^^- 

be 

"a  s 

=  '§ 

^fe 

>-> 

to  Judges 
hed  in  the 
e  Israelite 
"  prophet- 

n  in  Laish 

(Gideon) 

founds  the 

of  Jahweh 

p 

s  brothers  and  rules  three  years  as 

ng  over  Shechem  and  the  neighbour- 

g  towns.     Eebellion   and  overthrow 

the  Shechemites.      Abimelechf  at 

03 

rP 
CO 

c3 

1 

o 

rP 

S        '^e 

O 
be 

P 

H 

a 
_o 

o 

p 
.2 
a 
.E 

CO 

p 

erf 

•I— s 

a 

Canaanite  King  (according 
,  General)  Sisera  is  vanquis 
ain  of  Jezreel  by  partof  th 
ibes  under  Barak  and  the 

1- 

P 

o 

P 

CO 

Establishment  of  a  part  of  Da 
(Judges    xviii.).     Jerubbaal 
defeats  the  Midianites  and 
worship  of  the  golden  image 

'> 

CO 

O 
be 

1, 
? 

■a 

o 

P 

QJ 

§ 

CO 

be 

N3 

-=! 
H 

e4_i 
c3 

r2 

O 

mmonites  and  in  pursuanc 
critices  his  daughter  (Jud^ 

son,  of  Dan,  champion  a 
hilistines. 

a: 

CO 

:2 

-4J 

03 

-5 

;53.S'S 

< 

CO 

PO 

O'O 

-^22 

<^ 

170    CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


pq 

g 

« 

-*• 

H 

K 

r.i 

C 

S 

y 

H 

H 

>5 

2^- 


o 


^   o   ^^ 
tn    a.    ri         •'H 

^  S  o  d  ^ 

ot'  9  d  1^  5r! 
PP^-43HW 


a  ?. 


OS 

rd  P-, 


rd        .      Ph-H 


_^     M     O     fl     O 

d  'fH-d  •-'  rd 

r^     §     ^ 

do. 
o  o  >^ 

-^  S    . 

M     pLi  CO 


o  ^  d      i2  1^       _ 


§    2      . 

^  &<  w 

r        O     K 

Cm" 
Ph  S 


(Jahweh 
t  Shiloh. 
ated    to 
isters  to 

b  against 
Hophni 

iction  of 
vii.   14, 

by  the 
d  placed 
am.  V.  1, 

beah    in 
Samuel, 
n,  before 

,   Jona- 
chmash  : 
(1   Sam. 

1 

1. 

w 

t  of  Jahweh  of  Hosts 
i)  and  of  the  lioly  ark  a 
of    Ephraim,    dedic 
by   his   mother,  min 
hiloh  (1  Sam.  i,-iii.). 

le  holy  ark  in  the  figh 
ilistines.      Eli's   sons, 
nehas  fall.  Elif  [Destri 
ctuary  at  Shiloh,  Jer. 
;   1  Sam.  iv. 

ark    is  brought   back 
aes  to  Bethshemesh  an 
in  Kirjath-Jearim  (1  S 

son   of   Kish,  of    Gi 
in,   anointed  king  by 
Nahash,  king  of  Ammo 
Gilead  (1  Sam.  ix.-xi.). 

invasions.     Saul's  son 
orccs  the   Pass   of  Mi 
3w  of  the  Philistines 

pries 
baotl 
muel 
liweh 
I  at  S 

holy 
ilisti 
last 
.1). 

,   the 
njam 
teats 
besh- 

^  OJ    e3    b3  '— i 

i^g^^ 

^^■^'f 

;d  2  t>:d 

P^ 

K^ 

H 

^ 

Ph 

P3    ,• 

About 
1050 

1050-1020. 


171 


•goo  5  a 

P   ia   oj   o 
g  p  o  a> 

r*^     O)     o  «+H     P     ^     P 


o  fc:   fl 


be  S^ 

.2  =^ 

bc?:^ 
P  oj  «a     . 

:  -■« 

p,^^   pew 

s-S  -  ■ 


o 
O   oc 


>< 


-M  o  o 

<u  o  o 

^--'^^ 

o  §^ 

"DO      »,  ■- 
t«    OS    P  "-^ 

ce  5i  fH 

O    00    d    ol 
CO   ra   »5  ^ 

=^   p'^   ^ 

■^  0.22  P 

"  P  2 

'^'~  q"^  "^ 

•-  S      =« 

ij       O      O    .rl 


•^  —  rt     S     ^    ^ 


Wpl     fe=     O     53 

7-/-,  .  rH      S-  C3 

^   P    eS^ 
op     ^+e  ^ 

p  o   s'  ^  b^ 
^  ^   p.  O 


'So        3 

-M  '-j 

o        -^J 
x'^    >^  en 


cj 

p^  s 
f:i  o  o 


o   a->- 


>  -u  t+H  ^z;   ^   oi 


02     ^ 


CJ 

^  _i  t3   CJ   (^ 

^     «5     -3  -^     t' 


?    S  2 

S    ^  ^ 

^    ^.§  '^' 

^  "to  P  "2 

p  a  53  s 

.5  o  P  «^ 

J  o  ^  .>:i 

^^  2  ^ 

!/3    e3  r^j  I 

3  ^  a 

P 


P 

^  b 

o  ^ 


g<1 


172 


CHROXOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


0  ^  _r  V, 

y, 

•t:  s  >^  es 

*-* 

H 

" 

0  g  s  g 

11 

H 
'A 

0 

M   0   a   ;3ni 

^             . 

t  «^^  t>c 

«  6  S 

r"^     •^      (^ 

^      „ 

H   M   S 

^   ea 

0      0 

§  s  s 

°«-^ 

Pk  w  0 

c  «s 

g  H  s 

0     pq 

-«1^    03-2    P^ 

0 

PI  fl 

O   e3 


be  o   cj  "T-         ^ 
^^  p  ;h  t- 

^    cj    M  o 

.2  (D  OT  a 

^   CO  -^  ^        •  r3 


o^  r^  d  o  ca   •• 
-t^   rt   >-.   P  -t-i   cl     ^ 


^02 


o   o 

O    «    -^  -^ 

rj3   -r-l 

°^    O    cS    >, 

^<1N]  o 
ft 


«  -  p.^o  g:u 
^        p  fl.P3 


^*   (yd 
J:  a-  c 


a 


"^  f- 


S>>1 


.    -  _  tz)    'S    o 

»«    en    O 


M    S 


"S-d_5-^ 


•    O    cc      •    o 

«'=^  2:^2  d 
o      ^^  J3 

r53  rd     O  TJ 

rd    .  •+-  d  o:^ 


^o' 


S3    CO 

d"-+3 

Js    en 


o  ^  ,_ 

brio    • 
dIS.S 


:^  ^CO 


d  ^ 


1020-1000. 


173 


rt   rt   ^ 


^^^ 


o 
d  M 


<1^-:S-5fi 


flj    ra 
3rQ 


O   fl   o 

0)  ^ 


S  *s  s 

a  P  »H 
.«  art  — 

13  ^_    C3    rt 


O  -tJ 

en 


TO      Cj 


O  X2 


^•^-S-s-^^oo 


C/2   rt 


M 


C3        •  r— ! 

c^  rt 


,  ^      ^:  ^  h^  _^ 


JW 
< 


'::!    o 


-a  a    . 
c3  «  a 

•     C3   - — - 

a 

o 

.5  8^ 


a  >H 


03 


■^  -^  a  'S 
^  03  .a  ^ 

^  Q^  S^  ^ 


ta 


oi      p^  a 

o  a  d  ^ 

,.«    (^    o 
>-    t>    rt    o 

^  M  -(J  - — • 


W3     03     (»     I» 
•rl      J<      O       0, 

•^    03  -*J    C 


_a    S3    >%'  _<' 

H^^  a 


5  ij  ^^ 


b'^ 


a  'q.  <u 
o.tJ 

_w  O)    en 

•4-  a        r^ 

^  -4-.   o   a» 
C3    C^Hj 

•^      a   «4-      rj 

^  C3  or;: 


o  a  -u>  a  .-^ 

^  rt  a--:    . 

TJ  a  o^  t- 

g  fl  «  a  t; 


'M 


a  a  ^ 

S3 

o   g^ 
en    ^     — 

.9  5  S.-^ 
_a  *3       ^ 


en    o 

«^  a'^  =^ 
a>   o   P^     ^ 


174    CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES- FOR  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


br  fc* 


CJ     p   -M  HD  4M     O 

P.e« '^ '^  ^'"  .  S    ^ 

1^     O     rt  rT^      t^      >i 


-^  ^S^  o  ^ 


..^TS 


L^  -^    05    N    S3    C  c<i 

O     O!      d     Kl      ^^-tJ     o, 

c   cfi  o  o  o  «i 
.5   o  >  -^  j:3  ^  o 
p   fl   "1^  "S  P-i  -^  -^ 

^  g-  o  d  ^  o 
t>,^  t*  2  2  o  § 

^.-^  c  a  . 


^  bC 

2  2   S         ^ 
r^i'i^S.g  dOi 

rH    Qj  "JO    cj 

rH    •4-'     O  «*-  i-rJ 

-g.-^W  d^O 


^ 


«*  d 

.1^  d 
f^  d 


d  o-S  S^ 


tfh 


."^  o 


d  d^h^^ 

^^^^^^ 
«  «J.s  s 

o  ^  g-t: 

■TS  "1^  ^ 
p    w;    O    ^    !» 

dr-j     C3    W3^ 


S   rt    c3 


1020-1000. 


175 


f^    O  d  (D 

---  .,j  ,U)  <u 

4S  a  =^  a 

tH  o  p=  r' 


la 


^ 


^^«2     a 


6f  5  a 

o  _g  ^  ^  '^^ 


TO    -W 

£a 


'^    O      . 


c«  .z. 


O     O; 


£§•§3:2      2 

'^    c  ■-  ^'^  ^ 


2  ^  _^  3 

"^^    ^  5^  a 

o      :;r; 


P-O    X         ^ 


a^.:2  5  § 
^^^O  ph 


C     "     <M 


^  K  'o  .^ 
^  ai    '. 

""la' 

o 

O    M    CO  <ti 


.2.       M    ^ciH^ 


w^  a 

ca   -   d 

m  §:d 
t^  a.o 

'=^  3  d3^ 
'^    e^    d    ^ 


-M  -t->  ^    o 

a>       d    . 

d  d  -^  i^;^ 

•"-.9     S    g 

[^-^  8  O^ 
ft 


17G     CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


H 

w    . 
>  u 


}?■  ->^  ^  >) 
.2     ^^^ 

rO-Zi     ^     O     9 

d  >;i  rt  fl  «j 
02  c^nq^crt 


e.-! 

0 

tn 

0 

^ 

<1 

T3 

fl 

a> 

;i 

„ 

0  ■♦^ 

0 

2 

0 

^ 

s 

3 
^ 

"rt 

^,H 

3 

S 

hr 

—1 

4+W 

TJ 

H 

CO 

0 

1 

2 

C5 

^6 


aV  o.^  2-- 

O   "^  fH    s-i  S   O 

*  >  i^  DO  -^  t*  "43 

.rH        *2    -^  eC    cS 

t:  oi  ^^  q  a»  ■ 

'^  M  .  2  o  « .2 

O   a*  2b^  ^-=3  rH 


bX] 


dM 

o  ^ 
o  ^^ 

§1 

c3  a 

tx:-5 

-"J 

d^ 
o    „ 

a  ^ 

<^  t^ 


"  K^  J>^ 


M  .1:^   O  . 
5«    ^^ 


tc  ^  2  £  ^  ^  -d 


Or,-,  \^ 


«.2-i3      O^r-iH 

o 
m 


?  rt 
a  a 

P-  o 

a  bc 


M 


070-933. 


177 


6  i-^ 


>    O  <— I 


"^  S 


H 


3       ^'-'Tj    "-r^'Td      CO       1)      QJ  . 


oW^ 


Ol-H 


WpQ' 


CI 


'MS- 


5  rt 


I      03    (» 

«^     .5 

-^    "    O  I— I  r^r 

ill  -r^        ^-qq 

5  0.2  ^^ 


'    sd    ^    C    t£^    rt   O 


o       ^ 

^-1  _ 


o 

-  o 


H^T<Mt^  b 


£3   be  C  "TS  C 

*J    G    O   <U  ce 

k  "'"C   o   J-  ^     . 

a 


H 


a  o 


.  -ts  u::  <-ci 
o  c  o  o 


bx: 


!/3 


rt  U-.   !3 


Sao       5:1^2 

a.s^sl-^ 


o 

'k^  P  5^     . 

t^  o  o  (:m 

r/!  3  z:  ^  -^ 


•i-H    ^-^   Vi_i    ^   . 


.  a  ^ 


2  ^  a  '^ 


v.  -'-' 

'o  !2 '"' 


a^d  2^^ 

1-5  h::  -u  o 

O     O     W3     o 

§111 

•--^  5  S 
_    -d    _   t- 


C    ^'    '^      '• 

5^'p-a 
a  >.  o  o 

^^  p.a 
CO 


r/3    O 


12 


178    CHRONOLOGICAL    TABLES  FOR  THE   HISTORY  OP  THE  ISRAELITES. 


o  o 


O  tM 


a  s 

PI 
o  o 


^-   o   o  ^   - 


;:^  bcg 


c3    CU 


fl    o    I? 


o 


r/2     '"^    I       I       I 

O    1=1  M       ^     - 

-  -  — '  o 


o 


^  I 


r^  u-i  lI^    Cj 


H=^l 


5^  g<iW^  «  ^  =" 


^  -2 


g 

H 

w 

'C 

^ 

i_5 

H 

rS 

W 

a 

S 

-^ 

« 

W 

rt 

W 

r« 

■ji 

H 

M 

t-J 

f^     O    o    ^     r^ 


4)    f-i    ••  't- 


3  ^^* 

^•^   ^   bc 


o 

be 


f^ 


CO 


bX)^  b£ 

O  ^  pL^,  ^ 

^  t^  ,— ^ 
G0Cf2    O  iM 

C5 


IS 


,^,   >i 


I     bjD 

CO    « 


^    p    ^ 

^^  2 

"    bC  ^, 

r  a-Ti* 

M   o   5 


O    vi 

biD  o 
P    M 

d-r 
^  in 


53    »3 

o   p 


O    O 

bx;-j 

p    ^ 

|J 

o  ^-, 


^    "in 
CI-  v)      . 


«s  5-=i 


-M^      <D      b£|-^      rt 


k;  d^^^ 


^1h 

C3    _^       J-(  .^ 


t/3      C  ^' 


--^    tj    ^  O    O  ^  ^^ 


^CC    rt    -    o    -    he  o  o 


f^  rt^  o  a 

,  I— I   O   ai   o 

=^  .  p  t-j     •. 

Is  11^* 

f-  _p  .^     m  ^^   »0 
a)  -^     C«  ^    O  (>, 

d  t*-."^        d  !« 
o^        .  o  be 

-•tJ    P   O        ---I 

5s  ^-   J:;  *-.  o  "^ 

>3  Tj  TlJ  ^  -t-*  ^ 


^ 

o 

o 

^  d 

"*^  !M 

"*^  I— 1 

ts" 

?5  5^ 

^5^ 

o 

C5 

9:^)3-877. 


179 


o   Q   "^ 
w   O    etf 


09  be  <UrO 


M 


00  JH  o 


-I 


rt 
i=^^'^ 


00   cS   =3 

00      C   r^ 


CO  ^  <4 


O 


o   O 

p.,  ca 


_fci:  PI  ^  ^S  .2 

O    cj    cfi  tH  ,— < 


^.       "P 


C3    -J    N 


rt  ^  ^  W3  CO 

go  ^  o  '"' 

"     S-i     *,  O  1—^ 

^  o  2  2  o  t; 

p-l  -M  -i-"  w  (^    X 


^    rt    -! 
.S    o 


w 


.-."^  ^-T^    3^ 


'      O 


f^ 


o  o  c   rt 


^^  ^  o 

3  2^  S 

u         ^ 

:v.   1:1   o  o 


-:.««>-. 


r-l      <^ 


ee  Jlj 


-::  _^  O  K 


h£'P-, 


.2  » 


■2^ 

§8§B 

00 


,CO,GC  00 

' — 'cc 


12  ^ 


180     CriRONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


O   !^ 


,    c^  tH  I— I 

O  o   rt 
o  w  , 

d  be  oQ 

O  *^  a   es 

O  '^   ea     -  cs 

S^'f  ^^^ 


S3     "■ 


^1  I 

?i  s  §  s 

&   HAH 


CO 


>-  .S    rt    .-• 
■^    «*    S    ^ 
g^  H     05    H       ^ 

-S2    eg 

O    c«    0)    ^  •<  ^-H 
^_.    O)    rt    C  >-, 

^  ca  1=3  bjD     _o 
00  2^  P^^SPQ 


"5 

(kS 

a 

s 

-2 

0 

a 

t2d 
0 

0 

fA; 

rt 

fl 

r^ 

Oj 

'^ 

'r-l 

«-d 

^ 

CO 

M  a 

e3 

ElSE   OF   THE 

Monuments  of 

Israelite 

Literature. 

The        original 
form     of       the 
"Book  of  the  Co- 
venant" (Exod. 
xxi.-xxiii.;      of. 
xxiv.7).  If  there 
is  a  trace  of  it 
in  2Chron.  xvii. 
9     it     did     not 
originate        till 
Jelioshaphat's 
time. 

j 

°    i| 

di   t^   l>   p^ 


♦-1    00  _o     I 

S"-^^  a 


he 


P^  ?. 


o  o 


.    O    e3    rt    c« 


U 
§•2 


^-1  - 

,^    c3    O)    O 


^  ^^: 


!^ '; 


I  ^  t:!  -k-"  a  rrf 
1  -    -te  o  ^  2 


SM 


^2S  ^.?  a>| 


o 


^   c3  q-i   d  r^ 
,  -^l   O-r-    o, 


♦J  t/2   «2   ea   oS 


d  u 
o   w 

^'^ 
d  o 


d^  ^M 

o  ^73  ^ 
^   «5   fs   o 

;_i  ^-^      -*-> 
^^^^_d 

rd  d  S^ 

-  2"^ 

d 

O      M      Si 

2  «  g 


o  d 


tc       -^  ;::i. 


r-^.  W3 


o^- 


cc 


C3    O    >1 


^     {^   r^     M 


857-842. 


181 


a> 


8 


ofi^;^  s 


00 


o  -;::: 


N  "73  ^_-r3    U 


,       O     4J    C4_ 

X'  oo.S 


a 


.2  ccrs 


O^  ^oo^^ 


3  ^r^ 

^       •"a 

^•f^    O   a^   O 
r^  H^    <^    ■=-    fl 


.^R-? 

J^;: 

rt   »:  "^ 

?-i    o      • 

^  t-  a 

Pi-Z3   § 

M   2^2 

O    ^HrH 

rd       «^       ^ 

H^.2 

O    en     I 

t  and 
offers 
1.    W 

arried 
Athal 
mites 
rah. 

oshapha 
Mesha 
r  Ileres 

horam,   m 

daughter 

3f  the  Edo 

own  of  Lib 

^   .M 

1?]  J 
Moab 
lyof 

:;r 

--7^ 

CO 

o<1M^ 

(M 

^      1 
t>  =e  2 

a 
in 

C30 

CO 

r^^ 

i^^i 

d 

In 

d 

"^^-5 

'-^ 

pi 

etf 

^^  is 

n   aj   '^ 

s 

e3 

cj  a  ci 

•  i-I 

oft 

SCUS 

Iden 
hen 

t>i 

s 

c3 

<1^ 

2  s^  a  55 

S    g    OH-. 

o  "  c/2 

3 

03 

1 

^pq  ■" 

q-l 

rt^-^  ^ 

D-'-H    >■ 

,     d 

o 

-'     00 

&o§ 

oj 

7!^ 

bj: 

d  c 

•5  bi::2 
p,.S  ^ 

0 

•iB 

Q 

M 

U 


-♦J   eo 

Oh 

20 


^ 


rd      bC  rd     MC^h'T^ 

d-H  u^-^  !ll  d  S    • 

"^'^^  dS-^g-^Jn 

53  d  -r^  fvi  ^  i*-^ 


182      CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE   ISRAELITES. 


o  a 


O    O 


O         ci 

O      w       w 

rn     d     a     ..J 


i-H    PI 


lij     r-  J   ri      y.'     n 


9    H 


w 


2P 

fl  5   rt  o 
O  ^  M  -Tl 


beg 


0 


GO    O    <UH-I    9 


O    O 
O 

H 

-»^     Hi 
00  1-3 


og-=r 


S  -t-> 


pi 
O 

^    bJOn^ 


M 


O   CQ  £  pT) 

^-1    o  ^    '^ 

O    ^H  2    N 

C3    P!  ^    O 

N  -tr"  OI-3 

fl    ?i  be  P! 

-^^^^ 

5  a  ^'-^ 

'-I  w  f-  ^ 

•p    e«  O    O 

r-  r-f  "^ 

^1   g  ^-^^ 

5   p  SM   M 

o  ^  !^  t>,*;" 

d      ..=«^    bC 

o 


o  o 


1^ 

N    g    o 


N^ 


«    ^ 


^  o  o 


P!  "^ 


rdX 


bCd 


CO 


k^  rd 


rt    O    V^rM 


00 


o    ^.-^ 

ho'"'  ''^ 

r-1  T— '      -^      QJ      '^  "^ 


P    bl3 

-^  .5 

pa 


o   ^ 


00    -4-> 


c/: 

'+-I     CO 

be 


O    «    ?-(    >^. 


PI      «! 

■H 
■M 

PI 

o 
o 


cj         '     'a       ^    :/;  r— I 
1^     13  r-jCZi'o     P  rH 


iU 


a 


^^ 


«<1 


P!    c3 


CO  (7CJ    pj    O  CO 


CO    O 


'-'      r-i  I—   r^      r  .      1-^      n^     tJS     O 


S   ^  ^ 


o'-a 


W 


P    O^^l-Si 


S 


00 


S42-783. 


183 


03   a» 


<M*^   >-i-=!   ot^   '*^   ^t>-'^i   f^o 


S-2 


rj  a  ^  a  • 

^  a  "=  a^ 


^•-  a.co 


S  -*1  ^f^  GO  ^  Ph 


GO 


r-"      rt      "3      °^      ri 

-i->    _.    e3    "^    fc< 


55. SP 


h-j    o    S  T— I 


^   o   ii   k1 

c;  cs  «  Ld 
1-^  ;h  ;-.  ^ 

CO 
00 


m    S    3 


P-2  S^ 


O     B     53     '£ 


a 
o 


c3 
O 
t-5 


1-5    O    O 

^  o  ^::^ 

5  o  o 


^ 


If  e 


OS  "^ 

O  "i 

O    t?  CO  • 

fl+7  o  -^ 

O    c3    t«  on 

^  «  a 


^ 


o 

"^  -GO 
00 


o 

coQO 


184    CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTORY  OP  THE  ISRAELITES. 


Contemporary 
Events  in  Egypt, 

ETC. 

Flourishing 
period     of     the 
(Ethiopic)King- 
dom  of  ISTapata 
on    tlie    Upper 
Nile.      Piankhi 
of  Napata  con- 
quers       Upper 
Egypt.         Tef- 
nakht    of    Sais 
brings  the  petty 
princes  of  Lower 
Egypt  under  liis 
dominion,  but  at 
last  succumbs  to 
Piankhi    (about 
770). 

5     Campaign 
the  Assyrians 
ainst  Syria. 

00    ^ 

il 

u 

s 

O 

^-1 

©  o 

d 

< 

r? 

^  o 

o 

»o  d 

l-j    OJ 

-=^ 

• 

2 

Pi 

a 

CO 

eS 

A^Ih-,    bC 

1^  a 

P»i 

to 

X>.    O    c3 

t^n^ 

M 

M 

1^ 

a 

783-737. 


18c 


"^  o 


www 


o 


« 


C'P, 


t^  o 


J3  ca  ^  ^  Q, 


fl^ 


P^^^ 


^n 


^  o  o 


-H     r-<     f-i     (» 


"    sj    rt    C!    ?    H 
00    S    f2    ?>    '£    ^ 


o  -^ 

o 


^ 


^^^-3  o 


.5  o 


<r>  o  ^H  o 


:^  £: 


^     (/]     1>     Vi 

K  o  o  ^3  a 

■i*  ii    J^    3    J? 


5-  o 


•2  "CM 


O    o 


o^ 


be 


Pi 
o 

^   bC 

CO    g^ 

CO    ^ 


^5  o^  rt 


rtlSco 


2-S 


CO 


.5  ■^.  ^  .2 


CO  ci 


^  9  S  =^ 


^H       O      O 

H.2  PI 

O     03 

p  "^ 

o  o 


tc 


18G    CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  iHSTORY  01"  THE  iSRAELlTilS. 


••  O   >=)    •    o 

'-'^  ^  ^—  /"S      r- 


■*^  r~i  -^ 

d   fl   c 
o   a  <l^ 


t>>t^ 


"    K    § 

2  "^  I  « 
^.  2  ^  S 


S  w  ;3 


PhvS 


O  o   o 
o  ^ — 

IS   rt   a> 


S    St  CH  h-l  l-H 


a3|i!    53    n    C3 
O   a> 


CO 


o  -r;  2   k3 


tX" 


CO   bc  §    fM 


)  C   bo 


C/3!> 


CO    O 
CM    N 

1-  PI 


.  CO 

CO     J^ 


If' 

be  _Q    w 
rt  1:  I— t : 


o;    1:3 


S50 
2co 


P15 

0.5  rt 
fl  S  ^ 

^  5  ^ 


'PM 


C  pi ':^: '^  £j=i  r=3 

O    t«  t — -  , 


<^-d 


CO 


-^ 


S  «-2 


»5  'Ctl 


f^  R 


H< 


f^  fir- 


52    es    rt 
O  '2    cn 


j2  (M 


-*J      CO 

C-Pi 
(KM 

r-J  I 1 

in    ""^ 


|v^  CO  ,;q   CO  CO 

CO  t^       1>  ^  '^ 


it^i^ 


tO(-t 


00 


187 


>4-H 

.,-1 

t^ 

03 

^ 

O 

a 

'73 

o 

O 

O 

e3 

Kl 

O 

t« 

w 

be 

1 

4J 

on 

0^ 

O 

00 

Pi 

s 

=3 

<1 

s 

^S 

5-1 

^ 

73 

rd 

-TOG   Sar 
tlie     B 
itionccl  0 
Isa.    XX. 
g  of  Assy 

^ 

f-, 

^ 

^ 

1^ 

^  H  ^  ^ 

^  ^  ^  ^  o 


■M 

o 


cd    O 

O         ■*::; 


O   C)   o   Sj 
rn  .4_i    c.fj  jj 


fe 


^ 


. 

5t^ 

yj 

1-- 

rH 

p< 

rH 

:S 

cri 

:S 

t> 

C/l 

>■ 

k< 

M 

H 

i^ 

P^  O  rH 


O 

o  o 


<5^ 


Z  >  y< 

<»      ^     «3 

C   ^   c 


<o      -J      M      C3 


rj   -^   t«  ^ ^ 

•2  CO  ^a  15 

5     ^     P     Cl     M 


^T^    P 
^'  O    IJ    rt 

r'  P  f" 


E.> 


c 

he--*- 

o  o 

«  o 


I      WW      -1      ij 


fl  >% 


P  "oj  .1^ 

»jj    rt    p. 
rt    ?    rt 


C/3  ^     M 

f-i   P   P 

^-  "^  s 

;3     oj 
p  ^'o 

rt    (K    o 


CO  .'/3      >. 

'^  g  So 


11  = 


be        t«    c3 

c  .^  t^  p 

^^1 1  O  ^ 


^  ^q 


CO  ^ 


188    CHEOXOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOll  THE  EISTORY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


o  o 


K    C    S 


^    w    <^ 

o      fq 


1:^ ::     fcx; 


'S     CS     O     CO 


or.  B3 

o 
O 


o 

<u   es 

fcc 

■^'S 
"   >. 

2  ^ 
a  M 

?.-^ 

M 

o 

<B=3 

^^d 

he 

TO   o 

g5 

»J- 

ll 

l€ 

. 

t> 

w 

^  ^ 

C5    M 

CM     '. 

t>'k 

00-:-' J 
CO  *r^  -*-^ 


2    ^ 

•2   P  O 

^^      1=1 


•   «+-!     CO     O 


m 


TS 


^  P    e3 

"-3    O  ^^  I — I 
(=1        "M 


o   t> 

*      C3 


1/5 


O  (M 


^ 

P.  M 

(K 

X 

o 

a 

C3 

rTS 

f3 

.2 

o 

P^ 

r^ 

C/J 

Ol— 1 

■^ 

U^ 

o 

^ 

r-* 

■^ 

fe 

d 

r« 

^ 

.22 

O 

^ 

N' 

W 

fe: 

;^ 

tU-< 

p 

c3 

O 

ci 

_^-, 

— 1 

^ 

"o 

■^--i  M 


1-2  'o  "T^ 
a.  ^ 

o^ 

f=l   ^   c3 
o    'i' 

CO     QJ     CO 

P^'T3    ^ 


P^ 


714-G09.  189 


^  -1  ■•si  o         vi     a 


Bl  -fl^ 


n3  r-=^  w       ^ 


d  d 


P-1  p.2«  Si  :s^.  ^,^^ 


-i^re  ^.-  ^-^    ^^ 


.^^  1:1.^  oi  o  bco  g  GO 


fl  rO     GO  ^    Qi  t>i;  ■ 


O 


"CX. 


PH03r^c«O'-c5:3      .^1 — I         .^  JI '^  J  tJ  ^  — ^  rv-i  rO 

.2-3  s.s  gg^^.-i   -  ^§)§^a:S^-;i       ^      ^ 

>;-  ^1  05  -*->       o  o      :  ^  '— I  ^1  .ji:  -->-•  _S  cj  fH  ?v,  a^  _^ 


_    '^    (l^j    v-*    yj 

■^  «=  'T  !rl  ^  -ti  ^^"  C" 

<;j   ^   O  I— I  — '         2  -^  • 


'TP^'-^.  ^o^S'^zirzia:       5db_- 

CO  ^  '^ 


^o     2-3 

CO  <o 


190     CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


~00 


_   Ci  -ti  Ph 


^  s  §  g  ?^ 

.    ^  a  o  <^  t«^ 

11    ^lil 


•  <-H  IT"!  **-'   o  "^*-'   "rj 
o^l  d^  d^ 

^^     IqP     Pnd 


>^rd      O      ^ 


t^.-IS^c^.d 


2   ^    M 

d^W 

O     V3   (^1 


M  cc  d       o) 

Q   a^   O  '■■^  '^ 


o 


!/5 

o^  d 

O    O 

Sd^ 

^^  ^ 

fli  ' — '    tj 


O 

'So 


c3 
O 

■^"^ 

o 
•4-  rt 

rd      S 

.5-d 

^-3 


<5^  -t^Tj    f" 

rd  «^  o  be 


a*^ 


n3 


O 

^^^  o 

o  ^  -^  ^  cr 

>t  ^^    O  CO 

"^n^  3  -^  id 
o  d  ■«";:■  E  ^ 


G22-507. 


191 


f*  f5  ti  c3  'O  9^ 


3f3 


^Ofi  ^/^^ 


S  ^  o  <^  d    • 

r^  —■    JL      ;-<      d      C« 
O  'S  C^     <3J    <1> 


a    r/3    kS  -2 
O    OS    ;-.    ^      -     -^ 


lO    ;^ 


•— '  O       rd  C3 

°2  cr<    d  o*^ 

g  fl    ^^d 

•2  o  ^«  be- 


PQqqi^ot3w<1   con  P.-^  cetilHoscoGO^ 


e3 


0:2 


CA 


00 


1-5 .5  vi-  M  X,  t-j 


o 

d 

9  k^ 


^  ^  --   d 
5  rt}^'  o 


t« 


>T3  d 


<w 


.-^  o 

.5  '^ 


•-:  ^    bJ.  H    =^    '^ 


o 


0,0  ^    2    ^    O 


^r^      d  ,. 

m 


2       ^ 


O 


OQ 


a  ^• 


a 

r  ^  2  5--  a 


-  «^  J 


-d  be 


■*f  a 


3  ^-^ 


«     c«     fc* 
O    rt    X 


o  bi:> 

.9  ^ 

action 
of  K 
Jer. 

5W 

n3   00 

^ 

(M 

S-B-^ 

d 

.^ 

.^^ 

M 

go^i:: 

l>4 

S:3e 

r-{ 

^ 

it 

o 
d  ^ 

2"^ 

O      1 

o   rt 

tiole  court, 
brought  to 
pie  and  the 
:  numerous 
ngstthem), 
ar  (2  Kings 
mes  is  that 

'9.  o 

s  a 

d^ 

^  ^  a  o  o_k:  §    . 

^  d 

■u 

rs,  with  the 
vans,   and  i 
age  of  the  te 
Deportat'ton 
(Ezekiel  an 
sand  men  ot 
mongst  the 
,  Mattaniah 

,— i    O    CO 

o        br 

rev 
'ion 
Kin 

a  5  Ph. i. 2 -5    .  "^ 

a^-M 

•S      V: 

•— i    >-i  O    O    oc      .    o 

:^  sr 

.5  >^  d 

fe  d 

d"^^      rt      Cr^      >(— , 

rdt-1     00 

•5  2 
x;  a 

l^wTl.gl's 

►-^ 

_!__ 

192    CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


H 


i?5CM 


' 

o 

P^JD 

H 

p 

w 

^ 

^ 

rill 

^ 

a> 

o 

2 

o 

^ 

rt 

Ph 

Q, 

-*-> 

t4_ 

o 

w 

o 

1^ 

■ — - 

00 

•5: 

P-, 

< 

Ci 

,  ~ 

»o 

QJ 

0 

^ 

0 

<1 

OB 

0 

§ 

-=3 

0 

C 

P-( 

0 

<f! 

CQ 

IS3 

fl 

rt 

'■♦2 

0 

CO 

c« 

0 

0   0 

S     ^ 

1  1 

a^^-'i 

w  A  "^ 

rd  =s  rt 

>  2  S 

rtrrt  0 

^  ^     ^  .rr 

H  «  s 

^U^ 

^,  rt        c^iti 

rt  «^  2-t 

sag 

■A    '^    Z^ 

a  « 

ificc 
of  . 
r  at 

rr,    0    CS    0    " 

Magn 

ings 

nezza 

58G-7. 

siege 

Ithob 

Nebii 

Ezek. 

i       H     S:,     K 
CO     "^ 


02     >> 


Si 


:rt  K'^ 

X.r^      rt 

^<:rt  ss 
.  >    • 

»;    M    M 


!=>  S 

o  P-i 

"S  O    «^ 

N  O    O 

CO  S    2 

10  (»    P^ 


W' 


;h  : 1 

I — IX 


rt 


-^     "2  'X)   ^    tT    r^     <i^ 


2.rt 
o 


4J 


N3  B 
o 

'  SS  .,-t  '^     O) 
<^  — y  -rt 


oi^  c 

<u  g  8 


^^ 


oj  be  _ 

S  o  5^ 

^  a  ^  S  ^  rt 

O  O      --  t^  Kj 

rt 


rJ3 


-i^z  o  • 

f^    CO  ' 

rt  5.=?c 


03 


NT.    a  " 


O    rt    o 


2s  2  5;^ 


^Q  rt' 


^-^ 


CO    O 

ST. 

•rt-Q 

O     CO 

a 


^:.o' 


-Si 


o 


3o 


597-5G8.  193 


o 

W 


fl  ^ 

tn 

tCN 

c3 

P 

a 

cS   OS 

^^ 

C/3    -fcS 

;^ 

d  a. 

ilM 

c«  u-i    "^    I J        n    "~!    '"'         -Too 


7 
CO       o 


rS  't  a  ^  -~^  -^Tg^^        kSi=l.  ^Jh'=*^'t-!i— ^ 

o    .-2^3         ^^2^S      o-Si-      g  ^T5  §  ^^ 
^«P^^P^  ^JS-^i^     •^^^'m      S^^S     ^ 

o  =?  ^  >:  -^         £^^^2-5     c  ^-5  SI     2  i^  ^-^^-^  2 

a 

c3 


t^  / 


^S   2-^5:7      ^^3?^       _:f§^'^       ^J^S 


i«.|i:    l^gJ    :2^«-d    ||p^a£& 
■RIS^    £go^   I^^S    «§si-4H 


t^  O  h 


13 


194   CHROXOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOS  THE  HISTOPA"  OF  THE  ISRAELITES, 


S     02        . 

^    O    c3 
00  §f^ 


O  o 


O    c^    5 


:^"l  £l1"r' 


5    t^    b&l    O 


^^  d 


§1 


O    fi 


erS-2>Q'5'S 


3'M 


5  t> 

-    d 


CJ  I— (  , 

(^  o 


o  ;-.    . 

rd     «  ■'-^ 

o      ^ 

-S  fl(N 

^1    O)      • 

d  >  t> 

p   S   M 

, 

h  "?  X 

B 

'^    >~>vn 

ft 

^  t;  ^ 

►-5 

2>.^ 

O  '^  ^ 

«    rt   d 

^3   c3   a> 

2  «  a 

o       d 

^^^ 

-if'C 

•^     KJ     p. 

H 

"S  ""  J 

o        W 

t>iO    u 

^     tJ?  CL. 

rt    C3H-5 

w  ^^ 

03  (M 

d    PhCO 

.    M 

S^    « 

Exi 

try 

.3ff 

o^.>: 

r:=:  o  X 

-H^-TJ      . 

.^^ 

t+-i        a> 

:in 

1— 1 

.2*^  S 

cS 

^^  ?.. 

.01-529. 


195 


c3    ^ 

^  8 
oo 

(U    -J 
lO^   o 


OQ     OC     0) 

;-  c  -i 

;3    nS 


o    «= 


o 

fcC 


W5 


•    CO     M       •      O 


O    t-    fl 


PI  I  i 


d^ 


Ml 


W 


8 


be 


13- 


60  bC 
d   d 

oT  o 

is  ^ 
r^""    d 

CO  t*-l  54-1 

o  o  o 


r^  k:  «^ 


d  d  2 


ews 
cend< 
Jos 

60  J 

des 

iest, 

^ 

5 

S"^  ^  . 

Vl 

-I"5 

?l, 

op^Ht^ 

en 

d 

back 
en  by 

and 
h.  vi. 

O 

fccs    -,<i^ 

«4-l 

d  r3  'OJ  1^ 

o 

'i'g|.i 

.3^-^-- 

•  -  d 

t-               r^       -* 

-tJ  ;-, 

r^  i^  d  £:: 

o   9 

•^     Vi     N 

s 


d  .3  Q.  t> 

^  a  ^.-^  S 

^  o  2  "^ 

a -SI'S  ^W 

_Q  "^  tW     b  Of 

s  o  •-<  g  d 

.d  -t-*  d 

^'^    0^    o  S 

,_i_,  cc  -^  -d 

«s  d  "S  2 

dXi-S  d  ^_^ 

*t   ^   «-•   o        'M 

^H   PhPhO   > 


M 


13  * 


196   CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTORY  OP  THE  ISRAELITES. 


o  o 

bc.a 

1 

.5^ 

'S.5 

■s 

;-> 

f  the 
in  A 
us. 

a 

C«H 

<=>  «>  5 

o 

^-^fi 

o 

•73 

2^  a 

^o*5 

(-J 

m^^ 

^ 

O    O 
u 


o 


o^  ^  • 

Ph  a 

d  ®^  >^ 

:i       rl      £«    .rH 


cs  m  rt 


o  ^  «  :3  t* 

S    d  bC     .  -I 

'^   o  re  TS  C 

o   O  cJ   ««  o 

J:?   o  O   f^  a   t> 

O     rH  t-     «  O)     7 


.25tt 


-S> 


O  co" 

d  sh 

O     N3 

CO  "3 

to    ^ 

S3    d 
c-i    kJ 

-I 


520-445. 


W 


CO    o    c» 

O   o   fl 
eS    O    cS 


O  ^ 


1^  ^  -Q 


•5  s 


^-S^,. 


o^ 


,^    ai 


B 


» 


Cm 
O 

a 

o 

1 V 

P,    fH 

cl 

m 

o 

rd 

Cl 

f/3 

-^ 

n 

rt 

Fi 

i-i^ 

rt 

tA 

be 

rd 

d 

H 

P. 

to 

.9 

CO 

~ — 

S 

on 

d 

03 

t: 

d 

e3 

-^ 

<i.§ 

V 

bf. 

3 

— fl 

d 

(?a 

Q 

5 

^h-i 

O  'e? 

'^h-i 

rd^ 

'^-i    o  «+^ 

1  -"v 

o.«o 

§6 

rd 

nding 
;s'     C 
Law 

H  o 

^ 

d 

•^  "55 

Ki   O 

o 

■ 

3  2  <»   . 

s^. 

r^ 

';h^    t» 

<1l 

o 

3^^l 

f§ 

t:  ..-rS^ 

CD  dpq 

o 

rd  ij 

d 

-d 

ni 

•^    oJ 

n3     00  r-J     S^       t    ,^-v    OT 

-*J  ^H  e+H    ^    1     o) 

o 

d  fH 

o  1^  2-r:  fl-p4=! 

03    03    O^    03    t>» 

CO 

O    N 

S  t*  ?  5i  o    .13 

.    t*i         03    "    c? 

■§ 

d 

c3  .T; 

taxerxei 
m  with 
d  in  sp 
Hat,    T< 
e  re-for 
fty-two 

?=" 

■!i 

c+H     ^    O    ^     S    5^ 

N 

w 

'C 

o 

CO 

d 

o 
H 

by  Artaxerxes  I.,  brings 
1500    Juda?ans  and  Benj 
vii.  and  viii.). 

The  merciless  dissolution 
marriages  (Ezra  ix.  and 
the  Jewish  colony  in  sei 
discords,  and  in  animosit 
neighbours,  and  finally  (a 
eluded  from  Ezra  iv.  7  ff'. 
occasions  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem. 

Nehemiah,  cupbearer  of  Ar 
Susa,  is  sent  to  Jerusale: 
authority  as  governor,  an 
the    hostility    of    Sanba 
Geshem,  &c.,  completes  th 
tion   of   Jerusalem   in   fi 
(Neh.  ii.  l-vil  3). 

198    CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES  TOK  THE  HLSTOKY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


432-311 


199 


m     S  d 

cs .:::  -^  ^ 

o  ^  "^  $^ 

'B  B  ^  3 


c  t«  5 


go  « 

--a  <— I 

Pt|     O  r^ 
CO      nj      QJ 


H 

-2  So 


O 


-§ 


00        .  r-i 


'^   fl   ? 

-4-3 


W   ^      CO   o   b~S 


lO  ^       CO  -><  TS  ;.K 

coO     coO  oO 


-3    ^   -rH    r-l  O 

CO  P-1    ^H  CO    ?-    03 
CO 


:PMt:^ft 


^      «2      .^ 

I  i-S|4 

S^  ri^  S§ 


o  t^ 


o  o  c 


a 


fl  t.     «:;     C 
o    o 


9  3^2  «5 

c3  O    f-i  c! 

^  9  r^  <!i 

ca  aj  ..  .  o 


S:2  v^  ^  W^^'^c^ 


09  r-M 
O      fH 

.2'o 

n3rd 


I— I        -^ 


fH  p-5 

2   ^^  oo 

M  a  oj 

t^    e3    O 

O    ^  "*^ 

>H    O  -u 

C  «*-!     «3 

P    S3    w 

"^  2.2 

&-^^ 

S  p  ^ 
(S  p 

>o  t<  P 

CO    >^* 

-Kg 
p 

OOP 

-"1 


■4.3  EQ 

2p 

*^  p 

^  S 

eS  O 

<V  <D 

•—>  O 

?  - 


a 

CO  -u 

d  p. 
o 

w  n3 


p-z; 

t-    o 

P  a. 


O   H-> 

1-5 


P 
p 
o 

_hp 
"p 


a  b 


O 

O 

o  o 


rP     O 

si 

rP     « 

be  O 

P    bC 

o  a 


-11 
PhPM 


p 
p 
o 

be 

P 


Ol       ^ 

CO  CO 


CO 


'200    CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


^  CO 


2  d 

P4M 


1      PL,  O) 
"^  I — I  'IT'     r/i 

CO    '^n'    o 


o  s:  o  d  i^ 

'^      ■    -*    ^   l> 


i 

Ph 


a 

o 
'o 


O    Ph 
(M    O 


.5     '^     <^     ri 

tc:^  i=i-r: 


r  J*        o  ^  ^  '^  ?^ 


O    O    >-i — I  »3   C  t3 


O    -M   -4J  i-j 


O   o   o 


f-1  .03 


(D    "    fl    O 
^  / — V  0     «2 

-    o   <^ 


IS  ca  o)  „        o  CO 
HPMO:2g.9^^ 


MH    ^   o    o    O)       • 

o  f^  -^  ^  —  o 


o    ^ 


-7:3 


?.t^  o  « 


^  <u  d 


o  2 


<^^ 


-=  £  §  g  «J,^ 


0 

r^ 

a 

Ci, 

<3) 

;^ 

a> 

O'^ 

P^ 

ed 

ri:a 

r^ 

'^ 

l-H 

a 

M 

M 

o 

P4 

g 

o 

«4-l 

5 

o 

o 

tx 

__j 

0> 

^ 

M 

^.r 

ea 

'U 

a 

o 

rt 

^ 

r^M 

P 

P-l     i^' 

d)  .— I 
Oj    O) 

o   o   ^ 
o   be    . 


o 


p^ 


30M75. 


201 


'o 


21 


-Mil. 

o  ea  B  M 

;^  1 2  o 

S'^  s  ^ 
c^  a  ^^ 
o  f> ' — '  ^ 

P     g     rt     Pi 


2  la 

"^   6   <i^ 


.^-^ 


a  I— I 


.2H 


o        -5 

o  2  §  ii  o 

rH    O    o    r3 


GO 


9  rt  O 


;^pms  s-^ 


M    be 

or£3 


is  a 

o  o 

1-5    O 


.2  ^ 


tn 


r-:3 

M    S 

O     3     OT 


c3  a) 

s-ti!  2  a 

rv,    c«    Qj  OC   1^    Ph  O) 

,-H     O    O  P     rHR^ 


en    o    o 


•^of^  2    . 

1-1         %   m 

'     r  d  L- 

r-M  -mI-3 


oil 


O    o 


2  . 

is-- 
30 

:a-' 

^5  a 


pi 

o 

.2 

"a 


P- 


1:!        M    tH      CC 


o      s 


o  P 


c», 


rP 


P 

.2      So 

P        ^P^ 

•--  O     GO 

e3      O 


III 

o   p   tn 

-^  -u    &i! 
""    a    ? 

r  a»^ ' 
p.-O  bc 

o  P  "5 


p-o 

p  -d 


-  t 

s  a 

be  a 


•+J  ^  r-H      ^     O 

^C  ^  'J^      ^   ^ 
*biD  o 


SB  lj^>i 


p 
3  " 


.     ^1— I     03 


ty,      Gj     -tJ       ,_L, 


p  a  « 


•^.2      t/3.So 
•^  ^      p  p  -^ 


202 


CHRO^JOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  lIISTOliY  OV  THE  ISEAELITEg. 


l-l 

aw 

H 

1 

170-164  Ptolemy  Vl.reigns 
along     with     his     brother 
Ptolemy    (VII.)   Physcon, 
who    was    afterwards    ex- 
pelled from  Egypt. 

Contemporary  Events 

IN    THE    ASSYRIO- 

Babylonian  Empire. 

The  third  Macedon- 
ian war  of   the  Eo- 
mans  against  Philip 

Rise  of  the  Monu- 
ments OF  Israelite 
Literature. 

si 
•< 

D 
l-s 

Antiochus  to  make  way  for  his  brother 
Jason  (literally,  Jesus),  the  head  of  the 
Greek  party. 

Jason  expelled  by  Menelaus,  the  assassin 
of  Onias  III. 

Jason  surprises    Jerusalem;    Antiochus, 
returning    from     Egypt,    takes     ven- 
geance (160)  on   the   inhabitants   and 
plunders  the  temple. 

Antiochus,    with     savage    cruelty,    pro- 
secutes the  extirpation  of  the  Jewish 
religion    and    customs.     Sabbath    ob- 
servance, circumcision  and  the  posses- 
sion of  the  Book  of  the  Law,  forbidden 
on  pain  of  death.    Eazing  of  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem ;    Syrian    garrison    in    the 
strongly   fortified   castle.   Compulsory 
heathen   sacrifices  in   all  the  cities  of 
Judea. 

In   Dec,    168,   erection    of  an    altar   of 
Olympian  Zeus,  to  whom   the  temple 
was    now   dedicated,    on   the   altar   of 
burnt    offering    at   Jerusalem    ("  The 
abomination  of  desolation,"  Dan.  xi.  31, 
xii.  11). 

i6 

rH                   O                                   GO 
J>.               i^                             CO 
1-H                 rH                              i-H 

171-1(J2. 


20;j 


.2      « 


r=;H  bC 


M 

CO 

.2 

CO 

O 

O 

ft 

s. 

o 

^ 

O 

n:j 

rH 

o 

'TS 

^ 

(M 

o 

3 

G 

> 

^^ 

GQ     O 

IT)    o 


o  o 


^    02   ,„-  g    O 


^  "o   "^ 


t» 


o  c 


^^  «^  "^ 

O    o    ^ 


o 

O   a. 


«   5  '^  "-S 

««    o   ^        *^ 
1-1-1    a;    ;x  ^tS 


.^   "' 

3 


-.->     CO     O 


o 

o  3 


CO 

t  a 
t>  CO 


.5  rt.2 


>^ 


.^n: 


r^  tW      « 


o     . 
0.2 


"S    °    o    fe 

a  s^-s 


a, 

o 
fl   o 

ft  z 

o  -^ 

bcS 


204    CHKONOLOGICAL  TABLES  FOR  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 


H 


W2      I        •"  -U    CLi 

•—     CO  "^H  ^ 

^  t>i  1—1     tj 

I  Sill 3 


:;::;^  ^  o 


o   rt 


r— (    CO    ^H 


1 

Tl 

fl> 

o 

-o 

cri 

^1 

M 

o 

1^ 

b3 

O 

^ 

a 

m 

o 

a; 

.r^ 

S 

o 

(-! 

o 

m 

,£4 

n3 

^ 

r/) 

O 

H^ 

«  g    ^  p  ss'S.s 

.  ^  ^-,  CO    CO    P 

t^  ??  p     r^  "^ 


p.. 


I— I  >M 


:3-2Cm  p:p 


O    P    rt    o^ 


cfl 


e+^  P  •> 

p,fi  §  ^8^S 

c3    fc!    Sh  2    ►^'? 

o25§l^^ 

P    . 2  o^       S 

c3    w   «  •  r2   O   rt   '^^ 

ppq.2^-S2^  a 


-2  CO     CO 


«2    a    o  r- 

«J  -^  ,  P 

jr  -<-^  o  -^ 

■TV  Oi  '^ 

.bf^    P  P 


Br^^-^ 


a  P 


o       S 


of 

.„     o  a 

M  -^  o  ja  ^-J 
^  o  P        o 

i-P      ^'^  'ei    W2 
C3    cj)    fl  rt 

r-H  (D    ecj    is 


O 
i^l  CO 


1(31-78. 


205 


0)    •  be 

<:^ 

o  o  g    • 

-"  ^  ^  '-I 

a   q  *^  .7i 

rfl     C«  t^      aJ 

^  ^  S  o 

t^  ej  re  -M 


O 

d  DO 
Jh   'I' 


be 


r^  '^  G 


>.-. 


j3     03     2 

^  =^  o  o 


;3 

>-i 

rj 

«4-l 

•  S 

o 

o 
o 

_^ 

W 

o 

'So'fe' 

H 

^^ 

n^. 

^r^ 

2    O    O)    ;^ 

^    CO     S 

00  ^-3  ^    O  a 

•"•  M-l  ^j  ^  o 

o  r^  a  f3 

<1  ;>  ^^  be 


§1. 


o'S 


3  beS 
o  ^   ^ 

O     ry)      O 

P-   OJ  ^ 


N 

*5 

be 

o 

a 


O      . 


W3 
O 

;:< 

p 
o 
o 


CO    o 


h^  5^ 


'f-<  P 

-S3-- 

O     rJ     a, 
IBS     ^ 

befd'-^ 
p  PI  d 

2      ^ 


so    (» 

~  p 
>-  o 


^^■^  rr'  _:  ^ 
1^   o  o 


P  P 
o 

•^  S.a 


■=1  =^  S  9 


5^  p 


O 


^    O    ^    Q>    0„ 

o  o  ^  „.22  P 
<iFqH^?^  a 


^-.    Ph 

..  a 

rt 

o   o 

^ 

a 

■^'S 

03 

r/) 

t^-i 

M     00 

o 

P    >^ 

.1 

P  o 

sa  jH 

p 
o 
O 


P 
p 

e3 
O 

;>> 

p 

rP 

o 


p-^ 


O 

CO       lO  O 
rH        CO  r-t 


00         .-  o       QO 


III. 

MEASUEES  AND  WEIGHTS,  MONEY,  THE 
COMPUTATION  OF  TIME  IN  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT.* 


1,  Measures  and  Weights. 

1.  Measures  of  Length.  By  far  the  most  frequently 
mentioned  measure  of  length  is  the  cubit  (Heb.  'ammd, 
which  also  means  '^  elbow  ^'  or  ^^f Ore-arm  ^^).  It  was  divided 
into  two  spans  [zereth,  1  Sam.  xvii.  4,  &c.),  each  of  these 
containing  three  palms  {tdjohachj  Exod.  xxv.  25^  &c.),  of  four 
fingers  each  ('esha\  1  Kings  vii.  15). 

Ezekiel  (xl.  5^  xliii.  13)  founds  the  measure  of  his  future 
temple  on  a  cubit  which  is  a  cubit  and  a  handbreadth  of  the 
ordinary  standard  long.  Hence  it  is  usually,  and  probably 
with  justice,  assumed  that  in  place  of  the  smaller  cubit  which 
had  gradually  become  prevalent  he  restored  "the  old  measure/' 
by  which,  according  to  2  Chron.  iii.  3,  the  temple  of  Solomon 
was  built.  But  it  is  uncertain  whether  the  Hebrew  measures 
are  to  be  identified  with  the  Egyptian  or  the  Babylonian. 
Amongst  the  Egyptians  the  great  or  ''^ royal''  cubit, 
(7  handbreadths  or  28  digits)  amounted  to  525-528  millimetres, 
and    therefore    the    small    one    (6   handbreadths)    to    about 

*  On  this  section  cf .  especially  J.  Benzinger,  Hebriiische  Archiiologie  (Freib. 
i.  B.  u.  Leipzig,  1894),  p.  178  ft'. 


MEASURES    AND    WKKHITS.  207 

450  mm.  l^nt  tlie  groat  or  "  royal '^  cubit  of  the  Babylonians 
comes  to  about  555,  the  small  or  common  cubit  to  about 
495  mm.  Hence  tlie  difference  is  not  great.  In  determining 
the  common  Hebrew  cubit  there  is  an  nncertainty  of  between 
45  and  49  centimetres,  and  in  that  of  Ezekiel  between  52  and 
55  centimetres. 

The  following  larger  measures  of  length  are  mentioned  :  — 

a.  The  Eod  {qane,  precise  meaning,  reed,  cane),  which 
measured,  according  to  Ezek.  xl.  5  (cf.  also  xl.  .'>,  7  f .,  xlii. 
16  fF.),  six  great  cubits,  i.e.,  according  to  the  above,  about 
3  metres  and  20  or  30  centimetres. 

b.  The  Length  (hibrd,  only  in  the  connection  Jcibrath  'ores), 
i.e.,  a  length  of  land,  Gen.  xlviii.  7,  and  2  Kings  v.  19,  or 
Jiibrafh  ha  ares,  the  length  of  the  land.  In  all  three  cases 
the  context  shows  that  it  is  a  short  distance,  and  can  scarcely 
be  a  definite  measure. 

The  superficial  measure  shned  also  {yoke,  literally,  team), 
which  is  applied  to  arable  land  at  1  Sam.  xiv.  14,  and  to  vine- 
growing  land  at  Isa.  v.  10,  is  probably  a  mere  approximate 
reckoning  of  as  much  laud  as  can  be  ploughed  in  a  day  with 
a  team  of  oxen. 

2.  Measures  of  capacity.  With  the  exception  of  the  'umer 
and  its  equivalent,  the  'issdron,  i.e.,  "tenth"  (see  below),  all 
the  Dry  and  Liquid  measures  are  formed  on  the  sexagesimal 
system,  and  there  can  therefore  be  no  doubt  that  they  came 
from  Babylonia,  from  which  country  this  system  spread  over 
Syria  and  Palestine  several  centuries  before  the  immigration 
of  the  Hebrews.  The  measures  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  : 

Churner  (Isa.  v.  10,  translated  "  Malter '^  by  Luther,  in  all 
other  passages  "  Homer ''),  only  mentioned  as  a  Dry  Measure, 
=  364-4  litres  [In  the  Oxford  ''  Helps  to  the  Study  of  the 
Bible"  the  earlier  Homer  is  stated  to  =293*760  litres,  or 
8-081  bushels,  and  the  latter  214-200  litres,  or  5-893  bushels]. 

Kor  (1  Kings  v.  2,  &c.,  Dry  Measure;  Ezek.  xlv.  14,  for 
Liquid)^  of  the  same  contents  as  the  Chomer. 

IjL'thel'h,  only  at  Hosea  iii.  2  (as  a  Grain  Measure),  according 


208      MEASUEES   AND   WEIGHTS,  MONEY^  THE    COMPUTATION    OP 

to  the  (perhaps  merely  conjectural)  tradition,  half  a  chomer, 
i.e.,  182-2  litres. 

'Ephd  (Isa  V.  10,  kc,  translated  "  Scheffel "  hj  Luther ; 
ProY.  XX.  10,  ''Mass'';  often  also  ''Epha''),  the  most 
frequently  mentioned  Dry  Measure;  the  tenth  part  of 
a  chomer  (Ezek.  xlv.  11)  =  3G'41.  At  Ezck.  xlv.  13  the 
sixth  part  of  an  'epha  is  mentioned. 

Bath  (at  Isa.  v.  10  Luther  renders  "Eimer,"  elsewhere 
''Bath''),  only  for  liquids;  the  tenth  part  of  a  kor  (Ezek. 
xlv.  14),  and  therefore  of  the  same  contents  as  the  'epha, 
-=36-41. 

Stdf  in  the  Old  Testament  only  for  Dry  Measure;  a  third  of 
the  'epha=  12-141. 

Hilly  Liquid  only;  a  sixth  of  the  bath  =  6-07  1. 

'Omer  [Gomer),  a  measure  which  is  only  found  in  the  so-called 
Priests'  Code  (Exod.  xvi.) ;  a  tenth  of  the  'epha,  therefore  = 
3' 64 1.  The  definite  explanation  at  Exod.  xvi.  36  proves  that  the 
name  was  not  employed  till  late.  Elsewhere  in  the  Priests' 
Code  the  same  measure  is  called 

'Issarun,  i.e.,  tenth  (of  an  'epha).  Consequently  in  the 
'Omer  or  'Issaron  the  Decimal  System  (though  not  till  the 
Priests'  Code)  triumphed  over  the  old  system,  according  to 
which  the  'epha  fell  into  fractions  or  multiples  of  six. 

Qah,  only  at  2  Kings  vi.  25  ("the  fourth  part  of  a  cab  ")  ; 
the  third  of  a  hin,  the  sixth  of  a  sea,  the  eighteenth  of  a  bath 
or  'epha=  2-21. 

Log  (only  at  Lev.  xiv.  10  ff,  as  Oil  Measure),  the  fourth  of 
a  qab  =  0"501. 

3.  Weights.  Like  the  Measures  of  Capacity,  the  System  of 
Weights,  which  the  Hebrews  doubtless  adopted  from  the 
Canaanites,  WTts  of  Babylonian  origin,  and  it,  too,  is  founded 
on  the  sexagesimal  system  :  1  talent  =  60  minae  ^  3600 
shekels.  The  Babylonians  distinguished  between  the  heavy 
and  the  light  talent,  as  well  as  between  the  heavy  and 
the  light  mina ;  in  each  case  the  light  weight  contained 
only  half  of  the  heavy.  But  another  distinction  was  also 
made  between  the   royal  iceigJit    (according  to   the   standard 


TIME    IN    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  209 

weights  found  in  tlie  ruins  of  Nineveh,  1  heavy  talent  =: 
60*6  kilos.,  and  therefore  a  heavy  niina  was  about  1  kilo.)  and 
the  common  iceight.  The  latter  (probably  older)  system  made 
its  way  amongst  the  Hebrews  and  others,  and  we  must 
calculate  the  statements  concerning  weights  in  the  Old 
Testament  according*  to  it :  the  talent  (Heb.  Icihhlr,  literally, 
circle)  =  58'94i  kilos.;  the  mina  (Heb.  mane),  the  sixtieth 
part  of  a  talent  =  982*4  grammes  ;  the  shekel  (Heb.  shrqel), 
the  sixtieth  part  of  a  mina  =  16'37  grammes.  The  following 
fractions  of  the  shekel  are  mentioned  : — The  half-shekel  (Heb. 
heqcij  Gen.  xxiv.  22,  &c.),  the  quarter-shekel  (1  Sam.  ix.  8), 
and  the  gem  (i.e.,  ^^  grain,^^  =  -^^  shekel).  A  distinction  also 
is  drawn  between  the  heavy  and  the  light  shekel,  &c.,  in  this 
common  weight;  the  light  shekel  comes  into  consideration 
especially  with  reference  to  money  (see  below). 

But  as  it  happened  with  the  measures  of  capacity  so  here 
also  a  change  to  the  decimal  system  is  found,  in  that  the 
mina  is  reckoned  as  50  instead  of  60  shekels.  This  does 
not  mean  that  the  shekel  was  made  heavier  but  that  the 
mina  and  the  talent  received  a  lighter  denomination.  Traces 
of  this  reckoning  are  first  found  in  the  Old  Testament  at 
Ezek.  xlv.  ]  2  (where  the  direction,  "  And  ye  shall  reckon  the 
mina  at  50  shekels"  [see  critical  note  on  Ezek.  xlv.  12,  in 
Kautzsch's  Die  Heilige  Schrift]  obviously  introduces  some- 
thing fresh) ;  again,  in  the  Priests^  Code,  Exod.  xxxviii.  25  ff. 
(1  talent  =  3000  shekels  ;  hence  the  mina  =  50  shekels).  At 
2  Chron.  ix.  16  the  mina  seems  to  be  reckoned  as  100  shekels, 
for  the  weight  of  Solomon^s  golden  targets  is  stated  at 
300  shekels,  instead  of  3  mlnae  (1  Kings  x.  17).  Probabh^, 
however,  we  have  here,  as  is  so  frequently  the  case  with  the 
Chronicler,  an  intentional  enhancing  of  the  traditional 
statement. 

The  division  of  the  shekel  into  20  gerahs,  like  the  new 
computation  of  the  mina,  seems  to  have  first  become 
customary  in  EzekieVs  time,  for  he  lays  special  stress  on 
it  at  xlv.  12  (see  above).  With  this  it  corresponds  that 
the  proportion  is  invariably    repeated    in  the   Priests'   Code 

14 


210      MEASURES   AND    WEIGHTS,  MONEY,  THE    COMPUTATION    OF 

(Exod.  XXX.  13,  Lev.  xxvii.  25^  Num.  iii.  47,  xviii.  16)  when 
the '''lioly  weight^'  is  prescribed.  The  "  holy  weight  ^^  (lit. 
^''shekel  of  the  sanctuary  ^^),  according  to  the  view  of  the 
rabbis,  is  contrasted  with  the  common  weight,  supposed  to  bo 
half  as  heavy ;  in  reality,  with  the  somewhat  lighter  silver 
shekel  which  was  current  as  a  coin  (see  below). 


2.  Money, 

Apart  fmm  the  introduction  of  Persian  coins  after  the 
Exile  (see  below),  the  precious  metals  were  employed  as  the 
medium  of  exchange  by  weighing  out  the  amount  (Gen.  xxiii. 
15  f. :  cf.  also  Isa.  Iv.  2)  in  the  balance  (Jer.  xxxii.  9).  It  is 
no  doubt  probable  that  even  in  early  times  pieces  of  deter- 
minate w^eight,  provided  perhaps  with  some  stamp,  were  in 
circulation.  The  silver  quarter-shekel,  1  Sam.  ix.  8,  points  iu 
this  direction,  23orhaps  also  "  the  pieces  of  silver,'^  Gen.  xlii. 
25,  35,  as  well  as  the  qeslfd,  Gen.  xxxiii.  19,  Josh.  xxiv.  32, 
Job  xlii.  11,  which  can  only  be  explained,  especially  in  the 
passage  in  Job,  as  pieces  of  metal  of  definite  weight.  But 
seeing  that  the  weighing  of  pieces  of  metal  to  a  definite 
weight,  according  to  all  the  indications,  was  a  private  affair, 
and  therefore  furnished  no  guarantee  of  correctness,  the 
re-w^eighing  of  these  pieces,  at  least  in  the  case  of  large  sums, 
was  inevitable.  The  predominance  of  silver  as  the  medium  of 
exchange  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  hesephj  ^^silver,^^  in  the 
wider  sense  of  the  word,  may  mean  '^ money  "  or  ^''payment  '^ 
(Exod.  xxi.  11)  in  general. 

Naturally  the  money  was  weighed  out  in  ancient  times  in 
accordance  with  the  ^^revalent  scale  of  weights  (see  above)  : 
here,  too,  the  shekel,  as  sixtieth  (or  50th)  part  of  the  mina 
and  three  thousand  six  hundredth  (or  3000th)  part  of  the 
talent,  was  the  unit.  But  as  the  circulation  of  metal  pieces 
of  definite  weight  became  more  common  it  must  have  been 
felt  more  and  more  keenly  that  it  was  very  awkward  to 
reckon  the  gold  shekel  in  terms  of  the  silver  shekel,  or  vice 
versa,  whilst  tlie  relative  values   of  gold  and  silver  remained 


TIME    IN    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  211 

fixed  in  tlie  proportion  of  1  to  13;}.  According  to  the  great 
common  weight  (see  above,  p.  209)  a  shekel  weighed  16*37 
grammes^  according  to  the  s??iaZ^  weight  about  8"  18  grammes. 
A  silver  piece,  therefore,  of  about  109  gr.  corresponded 
with  a  gold  shekel  of  the  latter  weight ;  a  silver  piece  of 
218  gr.  to  a  gold  shekel  of  the  heavy  weight.  The  difhculty 
of  reckoning  was  relieved  by  the  production  of  a  unit  of 
silver,  a  piece  which  either  weighed  -j^oth  (in  Babylonia,  &c.) 
or  y^th  (almost  everywhere  in  Phoenicia,  as  well  as  among 
the  Israelites)  of  the  silver  piece  corresponding  to  the  gold 
shekel :  hence  if  we  take  the  small  common  weight  as  the 
basis  it  would  amount  to  10*91  or  7*27  gr.,  and  with  the 
larger  common  weight  as  the  basis  21*82  or  14*54<gr.  These 
silver  pieces  also  commonly  bore  the  name  shekel,  although 
in  reality  they  were  1*83  or  0*91  gr.  less  than  the  shekel  of 
weight  or  gold  shekel. 

The  first  evidence  that  the  Israelites  actually  made  the 
silver  shekel  equal  to  T^th  (not  ^o^^)  ^^  *^^®  weight  of  the 
gold  shekel  multiplied  by  13^  is  furnished  by  the  division 
into  half  and  quarter  shekels  which  is  also  found  in  other 
places"^  where  the  shekel  was  fixed  at  ^^^tli  of  the  above 
weight.  It  is  shown  further  by  the  actual  Aveight  of  the 
(stamped)  shekels  o£  the  Maccaba)an  period  which  have  been 
preserved  in  fairly  considerable  numbers.  This  varies 
between  14*50  and  14*65  gr. :  14*55  gr.  has  therefore  been 
taken  as  the  average. 

Both  in  gold  and  silver  the  mina  was  reckoned  as  contain- 
ing 50  shekels,  not  60  as  in  the  older  weight,  and  the  talent 
60  such  minae  (and  therefore  3000  shekels).     If  we  put  the 


*  If  Exod.  XXX.  13  fixes  the  so-called  poll-tax  at  half  a  shekel  and  Neh.  x.  33 
at  a  third  of  a  shekel,  Nehemiah  i)erhaps  adheres  to  the  Persian  system,  which 
was  constructed  on  the  tenth  of  a  shekel  standard  and  accordingly  (cf ,  Benzinger, 
loc.  fit.,  p.  193)  divided  the  shekel  into  thirds,  not  into  halves  and  quarters. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Maccabican  systcro,  which,  according  to  the  above,  was 
constructed  on  the  fifteenth  of  a  shekel  standard,  again  demanded  the  half 
shekel  as  poll-tax  {cf.  Matt.  xvii.  24  £f.,  where  the  didrachma  or  double  drachma 
corresponds  to  the  value  of  half  a  shekel). 

14    * 


16-87 

gr. 

= 

£2 

818-G 

gr. 

= 

£100 

49-11  kilos. 

= 

£6000 

14-55 

gi'- 

= 

2.9  8cl 

727-5 

gr. 

= 

£6.  13.9 

U 

212      ilEASURtlS    AND    WEIGHTS^  MONEY^  THE    COMPUTATION    OP 

value   of  tlie  gold  shekel  at  about  £2^  and  that  of  the  silver 
shekel  at  about  2.9  8d,^  then — 

I   Gold  shekel    = 

1  Gold  mina      = 

1   Gold  talent     = 

1   Silver  shekel  = 

1   Silver  mina     = 

1  Silver  talent  =     43-65  kilos.  =^  £400 
The    following    stamped    coins  are  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Testament:  — 

1.  The  Daric  (Heb.  fidarkon),  introduced  by  Darius  I. 
(521*485)^  a  gold  coin  of  8*40  gr.  [i.e.,  about  73^0 th  of  the  light 
Babylonian  mina),  and  therefore  worth  about  £1.  2.9*  :  cf. 
Ezra  viii.  27  (about  458).  At  1  Chron.  xxix.  7,  the  computa- 
tion by  darics  is  pre-supposed  even  for  David^s  time,  a  proof 
that  the  coin  must  have  been  in  circulation  for  a  very  long 
time. 

2.  The  JJrachme  (Heb.  darkemon),  Ezra  ii.  G9  (Neb.  vii. 
70  ff.).  From  a  Phoenician  inscription  found  in  the  Piraeus 
in  1888,  in  which  darlcemon  and  adarhon  stand  beside  each 
other,  it  is  clear  that  they  are  not  names  of  the  same  coin,  as 
used  to  be  thought.  Cf.  Ed.  Meyer,  Die  Entstehung  des 
Judenthums  (Halle,  1896)  p.  196fr.  He  estimates  the  gold 
drachme,  in  case  the  Persian  system  is  followed,  at  4-3  gr.,  = 
about  12s. 

According  to  1  Mace.  xv.  6,  the  Jews  first  obtained  the 
right  to  coin  money  in  139-138  e.g.,  under  the  high-priest  and 
prince,  Simon. 

3.  Computation  op  Time. 
1.  The  Year.      The  ancient  Hebrew  year  was  a  solar  f  year 

*   [Cf.  Helps  to  the  Study  of  the  Bible,  p.  150.     Tr.] 

t  At  Gen.  vii.  11,  viii.  14  (in  the  Priests'  Document)  the  length  of  the  Deluge 
Year  is  reckoned  from  the  17th  day  of  the  2nd  month  of  the  GOOth  year  of  Noah 
to  the  27th  day  of  the  2nd  month  of  the  601st  year.  This  presupposes  that  in 
the  primeval  period  they  reckoned  by  lunar  years  of  354  days,  and  therefore 
had  to  add  eleven  days  to  complete  the  solar  year  (the  traditional  length  of  the 
Deluge.) 


TIME    IN    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  213 

of  twelve  months.  This  follows  partly  from  the  names  of 
certain  months,  in  so  far  as  they  are  suitable  to  definite 
seasons,  and  partly  from  the  assignment  to  definite  months  of 
the  feasts  which  depend  upon  the  harvest.  In  pre-exilic  times 
the  year  began  in  autumn  (Exod.  xxiii.  16,  xxxiv.  22) ;  in  all 
probability  there  is  a  reminiscence  of  this  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  new  moon  [i.e.,  the  first  day)  of  the  seventh 
month  as  the  '^  Day  of  Trumpet  Blowing "  (Lev.  xxiii.  24, 
Num.  xxix.  1).  During  the  Exile,  in  accordance  with  the 
Babylonian  system,  the  beginning  of  the  year  was  transferred 
to  the  spring ;  the  manner  in  which  Exod.  xii.  2  emphasizes 
the  Passover  month  as  the  first  month  of  the  year  shows 
plainly  how  much  this  was  felt  to  be  an  innovation. 

2.  The  Months.  In  spite  of  and  contemporaneously  with 
the  computation  by  solar  years  (see  above)  the  computation  by 
lunar  months  (from  new  moon  to  new  moon)  of  twenty-nine 
to  thirty  days  each,  adopted  from  the  Canaanites,  asserted 
itself  amongst  the  Israelites.  *  It  is  an  evidence  of  this  that 
the  expression  for  ''  new  moon  ^'  (chodcsh)  was  partly  used  for 
the  first  day  of  the  month  and  partly  for  the  "  month "  in 
general,  and  eventually  quite  displaced  the  antique  Semitic 
designation  of  the  month  [yerach)).  Of  the  old  Hebrew  (or 
Canaanite)  names  of  the  months,  too,  it  happens  that  only  four 
have  been  preserved,  namely, 

^Ahlh  (Exod.  xiii.  4,  xxiii.  15,  xxxiv.  18,  Deut.  xvi.  1),  in 
full,  Chodesh  h(7-Ablb,  i.e.,  the  month  of  ears,  the  seventh 
(according  to  later  reckoning,  the  first)  month. 

Ziv  (1  Kings  vi.  1-37),  the  month  of  the  brilliance  [of 
flowers],  the  eighth  (later,  second)  month. 

^EtJuhiim  (1  Kings  viii.  2),  i.e.,  probably,  the  month  of 
the  constantly  flowing  [brooks],  the  first  (later,  seventh) 
month. 

Bal  (1  Kings  vi.  38),  the  second  (later,  eighth)  month. 

*  Although  we  have  no  evidence  for  it  in  the  Old  Testament  the  twelve  lunar 
months  (=  35-4  days  can  only  have  been  made  up  into  a  solar  year  of  305  days 
by  the  deliberate  insertion  of  an  intercalary  month  (in  the  later  Jewish  calendar, 
the  second  or  latter  Adar  as  a  thirteenth  month.) 


214       MEASURES    ANi)    WEIGHTS,,  MOlS^EYj  TJEIE    COMPUTATiON    OE 

In  tlic  time  immediately  preceding  the  Exile  tlie  number  of 
the  month  took  the  place  of  its  name;  this  is  universal  in 
Ezekiel^  in  the  later  portions  of  the  Book  of  Jeremiah,  in  the 
Books  of  Kings  (where  the  names  of  the  months,  1  vi.  1,  38, 
viii.  2 J  already  seemed  to  require  explaining),  as  well  as  in 
Haggai  and  Zechariah.  But,  together  with  the  numbers, 
Zechariah  already  uses  twice  the  new,  Babylonian- Syrian 
names  (i.  7,  vii.  1) ;  five  others  are  incidentally  mentioned  in 
the  Books  of  Esther,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  complete  list 
of  names  is  : — 

Approximately,  middle  of 

1.  Nisan  (Neh.  ii.  1,  Esth.  iii.  7).       March  to  April. 

2.  'lyyar  April  to  May. 

3.  Sivan  (Esth.  viii.  9)  May  to  June. 

4.  Tammuz  June  to  July. 

5.  'Ab  July  to  August. 

(3.  'Elul  (Neh.  vi.  15)  August  to  September. 

7.  Tishri  September  to  October. 

8.  Marchesvan  October  to  November. 

9.  Kislev  (Zech.  vii.  1,  Neh.  i.  1)  November  to  December. 

10.  Tebeth  (Esth.  ii.  16)  December  to  January. 

11.  Shebfit  (Zech.  i.  7)  January  to  February. 

12.  'Adar  (Ezra  vi.   15,   Esth.   iii.   7, 

and  often)  February  to  March. 

3.  Weeks  and  Days.  With  the  exception  of  Gen.  xxiv.  55 
(supposing  that  the  ten  days  there  is  to  be  regarded  as  a 
reference  to  the  division  of  the  month  into  so-called  decades), 
the  week  of  seven  days  [slidhua ,  i.e.,  a  seven  [of  days]  is 
always  taken  for  granted.  The  days  were  reckoned  from 
sunset  to  sunset  (but  cf.  Gen.  i.  5-8,  &c.,  where  the  days  are 
reckoned  from  morning  to  morning).  In  all  probability  the 
time  from  morning  to  evening  was  divided  into  twelve  hours, 
which  were  longer  or  shorter  according  to  the  season.  It  is 
in  favour  of  this  opinion  that,  although  there  is  no  expression 
for  ''hour"  in  the  Heb.  Old  Testament,  we  are  told  that  Ahaz 


I'IME    IN    TliE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  215 

set   np   a   suu-dial  in   Jerusalem,  probably  after  an  Assyrian 
pattern. 

The  niglit  was  divided  into  a  first  (Lam.  ii.  19  :  "  Beginning 
of  the  night-watclies ");  middle  (Judges  vii.  19),  and  last 
(Exod.  xiv.  24)  watch  of  the  night;  according  to  1  Sam.  xi.  11, 
the  last  was  also  called  the  morning  watch. 


IV. 

LIST  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  PEOPER  NAMES, 
ACCOMPANIED  WITH  AN  EXACT  TRANS- 
LITERATION OF  THEIR  HEBREW  FORMS. 


The  Hebrew  consonants  are  transliterated  as  follows  : — 'Alepli 
by  \  Betli_,  &c.^  b,  g,  d,  Jt,  v,  z  (a  quite  soft  s,  not  at  all 
resembling  the  German  5),  cli  (sometliiDg  like  ch  in  the 
German  "Rachen"  [or  Scotch  loch],  t  (the  hardest  t),  y,  h 
(when  aspirated,  hlij  something  like  the  German  ch  in  Rechen, 
Blech,  &c.)_,  Ij  m,  n,  s,  '  (a  peculiar  guttural),  2^  (aspirated,  pA), 
s  (an  emphatically  pronounced  6),  q  (a  strong  h,  formed  at  the 
back  of  the  palate),  r,  s  (to  be  spoken  as  the  common  s)  sh,  t. 
JSTo  notice  is  taken  in  the  transliteration  of  the  h  which  is  added 
at  the  end  (especially  of  feminine  words  in  a),  as  a  mere  vowel 
letter,  i.e.,  as  pointing  to  a  preceding  vowel. 

The  long  vowels  are  represented  by  a,  e,  T,  5,  u;  the 
short  by  a,  e  (unaccented  Seghol;  accented  Seghol  by  e), 
i,  Oj  u.  The  so-called  Sheva  quiescens  is  not  noticed ; 
Sheva  mobile  is  represented  by  e,  the  so-called  Chateph- 
sounds  by  «,  a,  0 ;  Fathach  furtivum  (always  after  a  long 
vowel)  also  by  a. 

Hebrew  words  as    a   rule    have    the    accent   on    the    final 


LIST    OF    OLD    TESTAMENT    I'KOrER    NAMES. 


217 


syllable;  an  accented  penultimate  syllable  is  indicated  in  tlio 
following  list  by  an  accent;  and  in  such  cases  tlie  accented  e,  ^, 
o,  u  [cj  i,  6,  il)  is  always  a  long  vowel,  but  accented  a  {a)  is 
sucL  only  in  yahuj  .  .   .  ydvesh,   .  .  .  mdvebh,  .  .  .  ^)^Z^^. 


Aaron,  'Aharun 
Abarim,  WhCirlm 
Abdon,  'Ahdun 
Abel     (place    name), 

\\hcl 
Abel  (man's   mame), 

Rebel  (breath) 
Abiah,   'Abiyya  (also 

\ibiy7jdhr(,      'Ahiy- 

ydm 
Abiathar,  Ebydlhftr 
Abigail,  \\blgdyil 
xlbihu,  'Ablhfc 
Abimael,  'Ablmacl 
Abimelech,      ^AbTmc- 

lekh 
Abishai,  'Abishaij 
Abnei%     ^Abncr,     also 

''Ab'iner 
Abraham,     'Abrdhdni 

('Abrdiu) 
Absalom,  ' Ahshdldm 
Accad,  'Akkad 
Accho,  'Ahkd 
Achish,  'AkJiJsh 
Achmetha,  'AchmctJid 

(Ecbatana) 
Aclior,  \lkhfir 
Aclishaph,  'Akhshdpli 
Achzib,  [Akhzlb 
Adam  'Addm  (man) 
Adama,  ^Addmd 
Admah,  'Admd 
Adiom\^\\,''  A  doniyydhu 
Adoraim,  \ldordyhn 
Adrammelech, 

\hlrammelekh 
Adullam,  'Adulldm 
Adummim,       \ldum- 

mlm 


Agag,  'Agdg 
Agiir,  ^Agur 
Ahab,  'Ach'db 
Ahasuerus,  Acliashvc- 

rush  (Xerxes) 
Ahaz,  ^Achdz 
Ahaziah,        'Achazyd, 

\lcliazydhu 
Ahiah,  ^Achiyya, 

*Achiyydhd 
Ahikam,  'Achlqdm 
Ahimaaz,  'AcJiJmd'as 
Ahimelech,    ^Achliwj- 

lekh 
Ahithophel,  \iclutJi6- 

pliel 
Ai,  ^Ay,  also  'Ayyd 
Ain,  'Ay in 
Ajalon,  'Ayydloii 
Akrabbira,        Aqrah- 

blm 
Al modad ,  'Almdddd 
Almon,  'AlvKjii 
Amalek,  'Amdleg 
Amasa,  'Amdsd 
Amaziah,  \imasyd 
Ammon,  'AmmCm 
Amnon,  'Amndu 
Amorite,  ^Amorl 
Amos  (the   Prophet), 

\imds 
Amoz        (father       of 

Isaiah),  ^AniOs 
Amraphcl,  ' Amrdphel 
Ana,  Wnd 
Anab,  \indb 
Anak,  'Andg 
Anakim,  'Jindqim 
Anamim,  \lndm7m 
Anathoth,  'AndthOth 


Anim,  \bum 
Aphek,  \ipheq 
Ar,  'Ar^ 
Arab,  'Ardhl 
Arabian,  'Arab 
Arad,  'Ardd 
Aram,  'Ardm 
Ararat,  ^Irdrdt 
Arba,  'Arba 
Argob,  'Argi'tb 
Ariel,  ''Artel 
Arkite,  'Arkl 
Arnon,  ''Arnon 
Aroer,     'Aruer^     also 

\irur 
Arpad,  ^Arpdd 
Arphaxad,     'ArpakJi- 

shad 
Artaxerxes,     ''Artach- 

shashtd 
Arubbotli,  \lrubbuth 
Arvadite,  'Arvddl 
Asa,  'Asd,^ 
Asahel,  \\sdliel 
Asaph,  \lsdph 
Ashchenaz,  'Ashkenaz 
Ashdod,  \Ashdud 
Asher,  'Ashrr 
Ashcra,  \iffhcrd 
Ashima,  'AsJumd 
Ashtaroth,  'Ashtdroth 
Askelon,  'Ashqclnn 
Asshur,  Assyrian, 

"'Ashslinr 
Astarte,  'Ashtorefh 
Atarotb,  Wtdrdth 
Athaliah,  Wthalyd 
Ava,  'Avvd 
Azazel,  'Azazcl 
Azekali,  Wzcqd 


218 


LIST    OF    OLD    TESTAMENT    i'llOl'ER    iJAMES    ACCOMPANlEi) 


Baal,  Baal  (Lord) 
Baalath,  Badlath 
Baal  Gad,  Baal  GCid 
Baal    Hamoii,    Baal 

Ildmoii 
Baal   Herraon,    Baal 

Cliermdn 
Baal      Meon,      Baal 

Meon 
Baal    Perazim,  Baal 

Berdfim 
Baal    Slialisha,   Baal 

Shdlishd 
Baal    Zephon,    Baal 

Sephou 
Baas  ha,  B  a  slid 
Babel,  Bahylon, ' Bdhel 
Bahurim,  Bachurlm 
Bala,  Bdld 
Balaam,  BiVdm 
Balak,  Bdldq 
Bamotb,  Bdmoth 
Barzillai,  Barzillay 
Baruch,  Bdriik 

(blessed) 
Basban,  BdsJidn 
Batbsbeba,  Bath- 

sh  eha' 
Bed  an,  Beddn 
Beer,  Beer 
Beeroth,  Be'eroth 
Beerslieba,  Beer 

Shi'ha 
Beesb-terab,     Be^esli- 

ierd. 
Bel,  Bel 
Bela,  Bela'^ 
Belsbazzar,     BelsJia\<- 

.sa?*,  also    Beltsha's- 

sar 
Benaiab,  Betid  yd,  Be- 

ndyalui 
Benbadad,  Ben-hadad 
Benjamin,  Bitiydmin 
Bered,  Be  red 
Berotbai,  Berothay 
Besor,  Besor 


Betacb,  Bctach 
Beten,  Bvten 
Betb-Anotb,        Betli- 

'Anoth 
Betb   Arabali,    Beth- 

[hd-yArdbd 
Betb     Arbeel,     Beth- 

'Arhel 
Betb-Azmavetb,  Beth- 

'Az7ndveth 
Betb      Aven,      Beth- 

^Aven 
Betb     Barab,      Betli- 

Bdrd 
Betb-Birei,  Beth-Birl 
Betb-Cberem,      Beth- 

Krrem 
Betli  Dagon,  Beth  Dd- 

gnn 
Bethel,  Beth-'JLJl 
Betb      Emeq,      Betli- 

Beth  Ezel,  Betli-^J^sel 
Beth      Gader,     Beth- 

Gdder 
Beth     Gamal,    Betli- 

Gdmul 
Beth     Hanan,     Beth- 

ChdndM 
Beth    Haram,     Betli- 

Hdrdm 
Beth    Hoglah,    Beth- 

Chogld 
Beth     Horon,     Beth- 

Chdron 
Beth  Jeshiraoth ,  Beth- 

\Jid-~\-Jeslilmnth 
Beth-le-Apbrab  [r.y.]  , 

Beth-le-'Aphrd 
Beth-lebaotb,  Beth-le- 

Bauth 
Bethlehem,       BetJiU" 

cliem 
Beth-nimrab,      Betli- 

Nivird 
Beth-pazzez,        Beth- 
Passes 


i  Beth.palefc,  Beth-PHet 
'  Betb  Peor,  Beth-Pedr 
i  Beth  Rehob,  Beth- 
j      Bechoh 

Beth     Shean,     Beth- 
She  d7i 
I  Beth-Sbemesb,    Beth- 
She  mesh 
Beth-Sbitta,  BPth-ha- 

S  hit  fa 
Beth-Tappuab,   Beth- 

Tappncich 
Bethuel,  Beth  a  el 
Beth-Zur,  Beth-sdr 
Betonim,  Betdnhn 
Bezek,  Bheq 
Bezer,  Brser 
Bilhab,  Bilhd 
Boaz,    Buaz   (in   him 

[is]  strength) 
Bocbim,  Bukhiin 
Bor  Hasira,  Bur  Has- 

s'lrd 
Bozkath,  Bosqath 
Bozrah,  Basra 
i  Buz,  Buz 


Cabul,  Kdhdl 

Cain,  Qdyiu 
I  Cainan,  Qeiuui 
'  Calah,  Kf'lach 
;  Caleb,  Kdleh 
I  Calneb,  Kalne,  Kalnr, 
■      also  Kaliw 
;  Canaan,  Kenaan 
I  Caphtor,  Kaphtnr 
I  Carcbemish,      Karhe- 

mish 
\  Casiphia,  Kdsiphyd 

Casluhim,  Kaslilchlm 
I  Cbaldaean,  KasdJm 

Chebar,  Kebdr 

Chedorlaomer,  Kedor- 
laomer 

Chemosh,  Kemfish 

Cbepbira,  Kephlrd 


WITH  AN  EXACT  TRANSLITERATION  OF  TUEIli  IIKBliEVV  I'OllxMS.       2l9 


Cheretliites  and  Pele- 

thitesT/i^],  KerethJ 

[veha]'rrlrth7 
Clierith,  Kerith 
Cherub,     Kcnlh,     pi. 

Keruhlm 
Chinneretli    (Chiiinc- 

rofch),       Kiiinrreth, 

Kiiinernth 
Chitiim,   Kittlm    (pi. 

of  Kittl) 
Chislobli  Tabor,  Kis- 

loth  Tahnr 
Chuslian  Rishathaim, 

Kilshan     Risb'uta- 

ylm 
Cash,  Kfish 
Cath,     Cutha,    Knth, 

Kiltha 
Cyrus,  Koresh 


Daberath,  Ddhcrath 
Dagon,  Bugdn 
Damascus,       Damme- 

'seq 
Dan,  Dan 
Daniel,  JJdJiJyycJ, 

BdnVel 
Daric,   AdarJcOn    (but 

Barhemdn  =  Drach- 

me) 
Darius,  Ddrei/dvesh 
David,  DdvJd 
Deborah,  Behdrd  (bee) 
Dedau,  Beddn 
Delilah,  Bellld 
Diblathaim,        Bihla- 

thdyim 
Dibon,  Blhnn 
Diklah,  Biqhl 
Dinah,  Bhid 
Dinhabah,  Binhdbd 
Dizahab,  Dj  Zdhdh 
Do  eg,  Bd'f'g 
Dophkah,  Bophqd 
Dor,  Br,r 


'  Dotlian,         Bothdyin, 

Botha  ii 
\  Dumah,  BTimd 
I  Dura,  Dura 


Ebal,  'Ehdl 

Eben-ezer,    'Bbeii    ha 
'd^zer 

E  ber,  'l^her 

Eden,  'J'Jden,  'J^den 
,  Edom,  'Adorn 
\  Edomite,  \ldunil 
I  Edrei,  'Edre'l 
i  Y.<y\iiiWEglath 
\  Eglon,  'Eglou 

Ehud,  'Ehud 

Ekron,  'EqrOn 

Elah,  'Eld 
,  Elara,  'J^Idm 
I  Elath,    Elofch,    'Elat, 

'Eloth 
!  Elealeh,  'Erdle 
\  Eleazar,  'EVd.zdr 

Elhanan,  'Elchdnd)i 
I  Eli,  'Ell 

Elias,   'EUyyd,  'Elly- 
'      ydhu 
\  Eliezer,_^iZz'e2er 

Elim,  'Elhn 

Elisbali     (people), 

'Allshd 
I  Elisha       (prophet), 
j      'Allshd^ 
I  Elkosh,  'Elqdsh 
!  Ellasar,_'ii//?rt.s«r 

Elon,  'Elm 
I  Eltekeh,  'Elteqc 
I  Emira,  'Emlm 

Enam,  'Eiidm 

Endor,  'En  Bdr 
;  Engannim,    'J^Jn  Gan- 
I      nlni 

Engedi,  'En  Gedl 

Enoch,  Chnnokh 

Ephraim,  'Ephrdyim 

Ephrath,  'Ephrdth 


Ephron,  'Ephrdn 
Erccli,  'Erekh 
Esarhaddon,       'Esar- 

ch'iddon 
Esau,  'Esdv 
Rshcol,  'EsJd-rd 
i'vshcan,  'Esh'dn 
I^^shtaol,  'Eshtd'dl 
Esthemo  [a] ,  'Esthcnio, 

Esthemoa 
Esther,  'Eder 
Etham,  'Ethdm 
Ethan,  'Ethan 
Ethbaal,  'Ethhaal 
Ether,  'Ether 
Euphrates,  Pcrdt 
Eve,  Chavvd 
Evil  Merodacli,  'Av7l 

McrOdahh 
Ezekiel,  Ycchezqel 
Ezion    Geber,    'EsyOn 

Geber 
Ezra,  'Ezra 


Gaasli,  Gd'ash 
Gad,  Gdd 

Galilee,   Gdlll,  Galild 
Gallira,  Galllm 
Gamaliel,  GamlVcl 
Gareb,  Gdreb 
Gath,  Gath 
Gaza,  'Azzd 
Geba,  Geba 
Gebal,  Gebdl 
Gebim,  Gebnn 
Gedaliah,  Gcdalyd 
Geder,  Gcder 
Ge derail,  Gederd 
Gedor,  Gedor 
Gehazi,  Gachazl 
Gerar,  Gerdr 
Gerizim,  Gerlzzlni 
Gershom,       Gerslion, 

Grrshoin,  GPrshon 
Geshur,  Geshur 
Gezcr,  Gi'::er 


220         LIST    OF    OLD    TESTxVMENT    PROPER    NAMES    ACCOMPANIED 


Gether,  GctJier 
Gibbetlion,  Gibhethun 
Gibeali,  Gih'd 
Gibeon,  Gib' on 
Gideon,  Gid'dn 
Gihon,  GicJwn 
Gilboa,  Gilboa 
Gilead,  GU'dd 
Gilgal,  [ha^Gilgdl 
Giloh,  Gilo 
Girgashite,  Girgasln 
Gittaim,  Gittdyim 
Gob,  Gob 
Golan,  GolCin 
Goliath,  Golyath 
Gomer,  Gomer 
Gomorrali,  'AviOrd 
Gozan,  Gozdn 
Goshen,  Goshen 


Habakkuk,  Chabaqqdh 
Habor,  Clidbdr 
Hachmoni,        Cliahh- 

moni 
Had  ad,  Hadad 
Hadadezer,       Hadad- 

'ezer 
Hadashah         (town), 

Chaddshd 
Hadassah,  Hadassd 
Hadid,  Chddid 
Hadoram ,  Ha  dor  dm 
Hadrach,  Chadrdkh 
Hagar,  Hdgdr 
Hag-arenes  (  pi.  )> 

Hagr7m 
Haggai,  CJiaggay 
Hal  ah,  Chdlach 
Hallml,  Chalchul 
Ham,  Chdm 
Haman,  Hdmdn 
Hamath,  Ch (width 
Hammon,  ChammOn 
Hanani,  Chandni 
Han  as,  Chdncs 
Hannah,  Ghannd 


Hapara,  Happdrd 
Hapharaira,      Chaph- 

drdyim 
Hara,  Hdrd 
Haran,  Chdrdn 
Harod,  Chdrdd 
Havilah,  Chavild 
Havran,  Chavrdn 
Hazael,  Chdzd^cl 
Hazar  Addar,  Chdsar 

'Adddr 
Hazarmaveth,   Chasar 

Mdveth 
Hazazon  Tamar,  Chd- 

sdson  Tdmdr 
Hazeroth,  Chaser oth 
Hazor,  ChdsOr 
Hebrew,      'Ibr^,      pL, 

'i  brtr)i 
Hebron,  Chebron 
Helbon,  ChelbOn 
Helkath,        Chelqath, 

Chelqdth 
Hem  an,  Hemdn 
Hena,  Hena 
Hepher,  Chepher 
Hermon,  Chermon 
Heshbon,  Cheshbon 
Hezekiah,  Ghizqiyyd 
Hilkiah,       Chilqiyyd, 

Chilqiyydhu 
Hinnom,  Hiniinm 

(usually  Ge  Hinnom , 

or  GeBenH.,yii]\ey 

of  the  Son  of  Hin- 
nom) 
Hiram,  Chtrdm 
Hittite,      ChittJ,     pi. 

Chittlm 
Hivite,      Chivvi,     pi. 

Chivvir.i 
Hobab,  Chobdb 
Holon,  Choldn 
Hophra,  Chophra 
Hor,  Hor 
Horeb,  Choreb 
Hormah,  Chormd 


Horonaim,     Chord- 

ndyim 
Ho  sea,  'HOshe'd 
Hul,  ChTd 


Ibleam,  YibXedm 
Iddo,  'Iddn,  Ye  do 
Ijon,  'lyyOn 
Indian,  Hoddu 
Isaac,  Yischdq 
Isaiah,  Yeshaydhu 
Ishbosheth,       'hh 
Bijsheth 

j  Tshmael,  Yishmael 
Israel,  Yisrael 
Issachar,  Yissdkhdr 

'  Ithamar,  'Ithdmdr 


Jabal,  Ydbdl 

Jabbok,  YabbOq 
I  Jabesh,  Ydbesh 

Jabin,  YdbJn 

Jabneh,  Yabnr 
'  Jach in ,    Yd hh  In    ( He 
'      [God]  establishes) 

Jacob,  Yaaqob 

Jael,  Yd' el 

Jahaz,  Ydhas,  Ydhsd 

Jair,  Yd'lr 

Jakan,  Yd'dqdn 

Janoah,  Ydnndch 

Japhet,  Yepheth 

Japhia,  Ydphid' 

Jarmuth,  Yarmnth 

Jashobeam,      Ydshob- 
'am 

Jattir,  Yattlr 

Javan,  Ydvdn 
,  Jazer,  Yazer 
!  Jebus,  Yebns 
I  Jebusite,  YebdsJ 

Jcchoniah,      Yekonyd, 
Yekhonyu.hu 

Jeduthun,  Yedfithun 

Jehoahaz,  Yeho'dchdz 


WITH  AN  EXACT  TRANSLITERATION  OF  THEIR  HEBREW  FORMS.       221 


Jehoasli,  Ychudsh 
Jeboiaeliin,     YOydkJn, 

YchnydkliJn 
Jehoiada,        Yui/ddd\ 

Ye  hoi/ add" 
Jehoiakim,    YdydqJm, 

Ychoydq'im 
Jehoram,  YehOrdm 
Jehosbapliafc,     YOshd- 

pli dt.   Yell ushdph dt 
Jehu,  Yell  a 
Jekabzeel,  Yeqahse'el 
Jephtliah,  Yiphtdch 
Jeremiah,   Yirmeydh  n 
Jericho,  Yerlchu,  also 

YerechO 
Jeroboam,      YdroVdm 

(Yoroh'dm  /) 
Jerusalem,     Yerdsha- 

Idyim 
Jesse,  Yisliay 
Jetliro,  Yithrn 
Jew,         YehndJ,        pi. 

Yeh ddlm 
Jezebel,  'Izebel 
Jezreel,  Yizreel, 

Yizre'el 
Joab,  Yo'dh 
Job,  'lyyob 
Jobab,  Ydhdb 
Joel,  Yo'el 
Johanan,      Yoclidndn^ 

Yehoclidndn 
Jokmeam,  Yoqmedm 
Joktan,  Yoqtdn 
Joktheil,  Yoqteel 
Jonadab,         YOndddh, 

Yehondddh 
Jonah,  Yond 
Jonathan,     Yundthdn, 

Yehundthdn 
Joppa,    Yd  pi  in 

J  Oram,     Yordm     (for 

Yehdrdin) 
Jordan,  YardPn 
Joseph,  Yuseph 
Joshua,  Yehoshud 


Josiah ,  Yush  iyyd li  d 
J  o tbath a ,  Yothdthd 
Jotham,  Yufhdni 
Jubal,   Ynhdl 
Judah,  Yehddd 
Judith,  Yehudith 
Juttah,  Yuttd 


Kadesh,  QedesJi 
Kadcsh  Barnea, 

Qddesh  Barnea 
Kadmonites,  Qadmonl 
Kan  ah,  Qdnd 
Kedarenes,  Qeddr 
Kedemoth,  Qedcmdth 
Keilah,  Qelld 
Kenath,  Qendth 
Kenezite,   QenizzT,  pi. 

Qeaizzlm 
Kenite,       Qcni,       pi. 

Qenlm 
Kerioth,  Qeriyydth 
Keturah,  Qeturd 
Kidron,  Qidron 
Kir  (Heres,Hareseth) 

Qir  (Che res,  Chdre- 

seth) 
Kirjathaim,        Qiryd- 

th  dyim 
Kirjath    Jearim,  Qir- 

ydth  YedrJm 
Kirjath  Sepher,    Qir- 

jath  Sepher 
Kishon,  Qlslum 
Kohath,  Qehdt 
Korah,   Qurach 


Laban,  Ldhdn 
Lachish,  Ldkhlsh 
Laish,  Ldyish 
Lamech,  Lemekh 
Ijeah,  Le\l 
Lebanon,  Lchdnun 
Lehi,  Leclil 
Lemuel,  Lemuel 


Levi,  Led 

Levite,        Levi,       pi. 

LevJyyJm 
Libnali,  Lihnd 
Lod,  Lild 

Lodobar,  Ln  Debar 
Lot,  Lot 
Lud,  Lad 
Luhith,  Luchlth 
Luz,  Luz 


Maachah,  Ma'dkhd 

Machir,  Mdkhlr 

Madon,  Mddon 

Magog,  Mdgdg 

Mahanaim,   Machdnd- 
yitn 

Makkedah,  Maqqf-dd 

Malachi,  MaVdkhl 

Mamre,  Mamre 

Manasseh,  Meiiashshe 
Manna,  Mdu 
Marah,  Mdrd 
Mareshah,  Mdreshd 
Mash,  Mash 
Masrekah,  Masreqd 
Massah,  Massd 
Medebah,  Medebd 
Media,  Medes,  Mdday 
Megiddo ,  Meg  iddo 
Melchizedek,         Mal- 
lei sedeq 
Memphis,  Moph 
Menahem,  Menacheni 
Mephaath,  Mepliaath 
Mephibosheth,  Meplu- 

busheth 
Merab,  Mcrdb 
Merari,  Merdrl 
Merodach       Baladan, 
Merddakli  BaVddan 
^ferom,  Mcrdm 
^Eeroz,  Meruz 
]\Iesha  (place),  Mesha' 
Mesha  (king)  J/c^Vm' 
^leshech,  Meshekh 


222         LIST   OF    OLD    TESTAMENT    PROPER    NAMES    ACCOMPANIED 


Micah,  M'll-lia 
Michael,  MlhliuH 
Miclial,  MlWiCd 
Michmash,   MiJcJimds, 

Migdol,  Migdol 
Mi gron ,  Mi g run 
Milcom,  Milkom 
Minnitb,  Minnith 
Miriam,  MiryCim 
Misliael,  Mish'dl 
Mizpali,  Mispd\ 
Mizpeh,  Mispr 
Moab,  Mua'h 
Moabite,  M(yd'bi 
Moladab,  Mnlddd 
Mordecai,  Mordekhay 
Moreh,  MO)i' 
Moresbeth  Gatb, 

Mdri'slieth  Gath 
Moriab,  Murlyyd 
Moser,  Moserotb, 

Mnser,  Museroth 
Moses,  MOshf:; 


Naaman,  Na'dman 
Naara,  Naaran  j^aVVra , 

Kaiirdn 
Kabal,  Ndhdl 
Nadab,  Ndddh 
Nabalal,  Nahaldl 
Nabasb,  Ndchdsh 
Nabor,  N dell  or 
Nabum,  Ndchiim 
Naomi,  Ndoml 
Napbtali,  NaphtdlJ 
Napbtubim,    NaplitFt- 

cJum  (pL) 
Nazarite,  Ndzlr 
I^atban,  Ndthdn 
Nebaiotb,  Nebdydth 
Nebat,  Nehdt 
Xebo,  Nebo 
Nebucbadnezzar,  Ne- 

bdlcadnessar ;         in 

Daniel    also    Nehl- 


I'adnessar  (in  Eze- 
kiel  and  several 
passages  of  Jere- 
miab  tbe  correct 
form  Nebukadre'ssar 
is  found) 
I  Nebuzar-adan,   Nobu- 

zar'tiddn 
Necbo,  Nckhd 
Nehemiab,  Neckemyd 
j^epbtoab,  Nephtudch 
Neriab,  Neriyyd 
ISTatbaniel,  Nethanel 
Nethaniab,  Netkanyd 
Netopbab,  Nctophd 
Nimrod,  Nimrdd 
Nineveb,  Nmeve 
Nisrocb,  Nisrokh 
No  Amon,  Nu'  'Amdn 
Noab,  Nddch 
Nob,  Nob 
Nod,  Nod 

Noph,  Nuph(=  Mdpk, 
see  Mempbis) 

Obadiab,  Ujbadyd 
Obal,  'Obdl 
Obotb,  'ObdtJi 
Og,  'Orj 
Omri,  'Omrl 
On,  'On_ 
Onan,  ''O^idn 
Ono,  'Ond 
Opbel,  'Opiiel 
Opbir,  'Ophvr 
Opbrab,  'Ophrd 
Oreb,  'Oreb  (raven) 
Otbniel,  'OthiVcl 

Pagu,  Fad 
Paran,  IWrdn 
Parvaim,  FarrdyJm 
Pasbur,  Fashskur 
Passover,  Phach 
Patbros,  Pathrds 
Pekah,  Fekach 


Pekabiab,  Pekachyd 

Peleg,  Frleg 

Peniel,  Penuel,  FtnV- 

el,  Fen  a' el 
Peor,  Feur 
Perazim,  FerdsJm 
Perizzitte,  Ferizzl 
Petbor,  Fethlr 
Pbai-aob,  Fard 
Plulistines,  Felislitlm 

(pi.) 

Pi-habirotb,  Fl-hacki- 
rdth 

Pisgab,  Fisgd 
j  Pison,  F'ishdn 
I  Pithom,  Fithdm 
I  Potipbar,  FOtJphar 

Pul,  Ful 

Punon,  Fdndn 

Put,  Fat 


Raamab,  Famd 
Rabbatb  Amnion, 

Fabbath  'Arumdn 
Rab-Sbakeb,  Fabshdqe 
Racbel,  Fdchel  (ewe) 
Rabab,     Bdchdb     (as 

poetical    name    for 

Egypt,  Fdhab) 
Ramab,  Fdmd 
Ramotb,  lidmdth 
Rameses,       Barneses, 

Faamses 
Rebecca,  Fibqd 
Recbabites,  FekhdbJm 

(pi.) 

Reguel,  Re-'u-el 
Rebob,  Fec/inb 
I  'Rehohoam^Fechab'dm 
Rebobotb  (Ir),  Fechd- 

bnth  'Ir 
Repbaim,  FepkCthn 
Repbidim,  Fephldlm 
Resen,  Besen 
Reuben,  Be  uben 
Rezon,  Bezdn 


WITH  AN  EXACT  TRANSLITERATION  OP  TIIIOIR  HEBREW  FORMS.       223 


Rezepli,  IxhejjJi 
Rezin,  Ef^stu 
Riblah,  j/ibld 
Rimmon,  Rinwinti 
Riphath,  lllphath 
Rogel,  lidgPl 
Rogelim,  lidgcllm 
Rosh,  Rnsli 
Ruth,  Rath 


Sabbath,  ShahbdtJi 
Sabta,  Sahtd 
Sabtechah,  Sahtekhd 
Salchah,  Salekhd, 
Salem,  Shdleni 
Samaria,  Shomerun 
Samson,  ShimsJwii 
Samuel,  Shemael 
Sanballat,  Smihalldt 
Sarah,  Sdrd 
Sargon,  S  are  gun 
Satan,  Sdtdn 
Saul,  Sim  Fil 
Seir,  Selr 
Sela  (town)  SHa 
Selah  (musical   sign) 

Sidd 
Sennacherib,   Sanclie- 

r'lh 
Sep  bar,  Sephar 
Sepharad,  Sephdrad 
Sepharvaim,    Sepliar- 

vdyim 
Serai  ah,  Serdijd 
Seraphim,  ScrdphJm 
Serug,  S'n-ilg 
Seth,  Shi'th 
Shaalbim,    SliaalhJm, 

Shadlahhim 
Shaleph,  ShrlejjJi 
Shalim,  Sliaallm 
Shallum,  Shall  am 
Shalman,  Shdlcmdii 
Shalmaneser,  Shalma- 

tii'ser 
Shamgar,  Shamgdr 


Shaphan,  Shdphdn 

Sharon,  ShdrOn 

Sheba  (Benjamite), 
Shaba 

Sheba  (in  Arabia), 
Shchd' ;  (in  Ethio- 
pia), Seha 

Shebna,  Shehnd,  Sheh- 
71  d 

Shechera,  Shekhi)m 

Shekel  (coin),  Shvqel 

Shem,  Shcm 

Shemaiah,  She  ma  yd 

Sheshbazzar,  Shf'sh- 
hassar 

Shiloii,  Shllu 

Shimei,  Shim'l 

Shinar,  Shindr 

Shisak,  ShJshaq 

Shittim,  Shittlm 

Shuah,  Shuach 

Shunem,  Shnnem 

Slmr,  Shar 

Sibmah,  Sibmd 

Siddim,  Siddlm 

Sid  on,  St  don 

Sihon,  Sichun 

Sihor,  Shlhor 

Siloah,  Shtlodch 

Simeon,  Shim  On 

Sinai,  Slnay 

Sirion,  ShiryOn 

Sisera,  SJserd' 

So,  So 

Sochoh,  S'OkhO 

Sodom,  Sednm 

Solomon,  Sheldmn 

Sorek,  Sdrcq 

Succoth,  Siikh'dh 

Susa(n),  Shfishan 


Taanach,  Ta'dndhh 
Tabor,  Tdhlr 
Tabrimmon,    Td  brim- 
inn  )i 
Tadmor,  Tadmur 


'  Tahpanhes,  Tachpan- 
chi'n 

Tamar,  Tdmdr  (palm) 

Tammuz,  Tammuz 

Tappuach,  Tappndch 

Tarshish,  TarshJsh 

Tekoah,  Tequa  _ 

Tel  Abib,  Tel  JbJb 

Telassar,  Telassdr 

Tema,  Temd' 

Teman,  Temdn 

Terah,  Tirach 

Teraphim,  TerdphJm 

Thebez,  Tebfs 

Tibni,  Tlbnl  ■ 

Tiglath-Pileser,     Tig- 
lath    piVeser     (also 
peU'ser) 
I  Timnah,  Timnd 
I  Tiranath  Serah,  Tim- 
1      nath  Shach 
!  Tiphsach,  Tiphsach 
I  Tiras,  TJrds 

Tirhakah,  Tirhdqd 

Tirzah,  Tirsd 

Tob,  Tub 

Tobiah,  Tubiyyd 

Togarmah,  Tdgarmd 

Tola,  Tlld 

Toii,Tud 

Tubal-Cain,         Tubal 
Qdyin 

Tyre,  Sdr 


Ulai,  'TJlay 
Uphaz,  ^  Uphdz 
Ur,  'Ur  _ 
Uriah,  'JJriyyd 
Urim   and    Tummim, 

'  Urlm  veliimmJm 
Uz,  'Us 
Uzal,  'Uzal 
Uzziah,  'TJzziyyd, 

'Uzziyydhfc 

Vashti,  Vashtl 


224 


LIST   OF   OLD   TESTAMENT    PROPER    NAMES. 


Zadok,  Sddoq 
Z  aim  on,  Salmon 
Zanizummim,      Zam- 

zumm'iin 
Zanoah,  Zdnuach 
Zarephath,  Sdre^hath 
Zaretan,  SartCin 
Zebah       (Midianite), 

Zi'hach 
Zeboim,  SehuTm   and 

Sthdylm 
Zebul,  Zehfd 
Zebulon,  Zebidun 


Zechariah,   Zekharijd, 

ZeJiharydhd 
Zedad,  Seddd 
Zedekiab,  Sidqiyydhfi 
Zela,  Sela 

I  7jeTi\^Yidm,St;mdr6ylm 
Zephaniah,  SP.phanyd- 

hn 
-^erah,  Zeracli 
Zered,  Zh-ed 
Zereda,  Sercdd 
Zerubbabel,       Zcruh- 

hdbel 
Ziba,  Slhd 


Ziklasf,  Siqlag 
Zilpah,  Zilpd 
Zimri,  Zimrl 
Zinnab,  Slnnd 
Zion,  Sty  yon 
Zipb,  Zlvh 
Zipporah,  Sippdrd 
Zoan,  So  an 
Zoar,  S(Tar 
Zobab,  Suhd,  Sold' 
Zorah,  Sor'd 
Zupb,  Snph 
Zuzim,  Zuzlm  (pi.) 


V. 

SURVEY  OF  THE  COMPOSITION  FROM 
DIFFEEENT  DOCUMENTS  OF  SEVEEAL 
BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


Preliminary  Note. — The  Hebrew  Bible  (differing  from  tbe 
arrangement  of  the  Hebrew,  Latin,  German  [and  English] 
Bibles)  is  divided  into  the  following  three  parts  : — 

1.  Law  [Tora).  This  comprises  the  so-called  ''^  Five  Books 
of  Moses.''* 

2.  Prophets  [NthVim],  including 

a.  The  Former  Prophets  {i.e.,  those  which  stand  first  in  the 
Canon)  :  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings. 

h.  The  Latter  Prophets  (i.e.,  those  which  follow  in  the 
Canon)  :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  the  Book  of  the 
Twelve  [Minor  prophets] . 

3.  Writings  {Kethiihlm,  by  the  Greeks  called  Bagiocjrapha, 
i.e.,  ^'  Holy  Writings  ^^),  in  the  following  order.  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  Job,  Canticles,  Euth,  Lamentations,  Ecjle- 
siastes,  Esther,  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehcmiah,  Chronicles. 

The  letter  a  with  the  number  of  the  verse  signifies  the  first 
half  of  the  verse,  b  the  second  half.  An  asterisk  signifies  that 
a  redactor's  hand  has  meddled  with  the  phraseology  of  the 
document  in  question.     On  the  ground  of  more  or  less  certain 

15 


226      SURVEY  OF  THE  COMPOSITION  FROM  DIFFERENT  DOCUMENTS 

tokens   the   text  of   the  several    b 
different  documents  as  follows  *  : — 


tokens   the   text  of   the  several    books    is    assigned   to    the 


The  First  Book  of  Moses  (Genesis). 

P  (.Jahwist\  p.  37  f.):  IV.  16^'-24  (on  v.  23  f.  cf.  p.  3).  YI.  1-4. 
IX.  20-27  (omitting  the  gloss,  '^Ham,  the  father  of/'  in 
V.  22).  XI.  1-9,  and  from  Chap.  XII.  onwards  very 
much  which  now  cannot  be  distinguished  from  J^. 
''The  Blessing  of  Jacob ^'  (XLIX.  r'.27,  cf.  p.  15f.)  was 
also  undoubtedly  adopted  by  J^. 

,P  (pp. 3 If.,  38 ff.):  11.4^^-9,  15— lY.  16^  Y.  29.  YI.  5-6,  7^8. 
YII.  1-2,  3*,  4-5,  7-10,  12,  16^  17^  22,  23^^  YIII.  2'^ 
3%  6-12,  13",  20-22.  X.  8,  10-15,  18\  19,  21,  25-30.  XI. 
28*-30(?).  XII.  1-4%  6-20.  XIII.  1-5,  6^-11%  12M8.  XY. 
r^  2%  3'',  4,  6,  9-12%  17-18.  XYI.  1\  2,  4-7,  11-14. 
XYIII.  XIX.  1-28,  30-38  (?).  XXI.  1%  2%  7,  33.  XXII. 
20^-24.  XXIY.  XXY.  1-5,  ir^  18,  21-26%  27-34. 
XXYI.  1«%  2^  (to  '^  spake''),  3=^  (to  ^Mand"),  6-14,  16-17, 
19-33.  XXYII.  1%  2-4%  5-10,  14-15,  17,  18%  20,  24-27, 
29^  30=^%  31-32,  35-39%  40-41,  43,  45.  XXVIII,  10, 
13-16,  19\  XXIX.  2-14,  26^  31-35.  XXX.  3%  4^-5,  7, 
9-16,  20^  21,  22%  24^  25,  27,  29— XXXI.  1%  3,  2r^  25, 


*  A  really  vivid  picture  of  the  manner  in  which  the  documents  are  interwoven 
cannot  be  given  by  merely  stating  the  numbers  of  the  verses.  And  it  is  just  as 
impossible  to  state  with  each  single  verse  or  section  whether  it  is  assigned  to  the 
document  in  question  by  all  investigators  or  by  the  majority  or  only  by  a  few.  In 
the  Pentateuch  and  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  it  is  only  with  regard  to  P  that  some- 
thing approaching  to  unanimity  has  been  reached.  To  see  at  a  glance  the 
manner  in  which  the  sources  are  mingled  the  best  books  to  use  are  Haupt's 
Bible,  mentioned  above,  on  p.  35  (the  so-called  Kainbow  Bible),  the  work  also 
mentioned  there,  "  Genesis  mit  iiusserer  Unterscheidung  der  Quellenschriften  " 
(German  translation  in  eight  different  types),  and,  finally,  "  Die  Heilige  Schrift 
des  Alten  Test.",  by  Kautzsch  and  others,  where  the  various  documents  arc 
indicated  on  the  margin  by  letters  {J,  E,Pj  &c.). 


OF  SEVERAL    DOOKS   OF   THE    OLD   TESTAMENT.  227 

27,  38-40,  46,  4S«,  49i>-52.  XXXII.  4-14%  23,  25-32. 
XXXIII.  1-5%  6-10,  ll'^-17.  XXXIV.  1%  2'>.3^  5,  7, 
11-12,  19,  25*,  26*,  30-31.  XXXVII.  3,  4,  21*,  25i'^-27, 
28'^  32,  33,  35.  XXXVIII.  XXXIX.  1^  2"%  3%  4^  5^^^ 
6^  7'^-23.  XL.  1",  3%  5%  15%  XLI.  31,  41.  XLII.  2% 
4%  5  (?),  6"%  7,  27-28"%  38— XLIII.  13,  15^23%  24— 
XLV.  1%  2"%  4%  5"%  10%  13,  14,  28  (?).  XLVI.  1%  28— 
XL VII.  5^  (v.  4%  ''  they  spake  to  Pharaoh/'  is  repeated 
from  3''  by  mistake),  6'^  (before  5%  6"),  13-27%  29-31. 
XLVIII.  2%  8%  9%  10%  13-14,  17-19.  XLIX.  33'', 
L.  Ml,  14. 

E  (cf.  pp.  32  f.,  43  ff.) :  XV.  1^  2i^3%  5.  XX.  1-17.  XXI.  6,  8- 
32\  XXII.  1-13,  19.  XXVII.  1%4%  11-13,  16, 18'^-19,  21- 

23,  28,  29%  30%  33-34,  39%  42,  44.  XXVIII.  11-12,  17-18, 
20— XXIX.  1,  15-23,  25,  26%  27-28%  30.  XXX.  l^-3«% 
6,  8, 1 7,  18*,  19,  20'''%  22%  23-24%  26,  28.  XXXI.  2,  4-18% 
19-20,  2P%  22-24,  26,  28-37,  41-45,  53— XXXII.  3,  l#-22, 

24.  XXXIII.  5%  11%  18'^-20.  XXXV.  1-4,  iS^^-Q. 
XXXVII.  2^  5%  6-8%  9-11,  19-20,  22,  28"%  29-31,  34,  36. 
XXXIX.  2%  3%  4''%  5%  6%  7".  XL.  1%  2,  3%  4,  5%  6-15% 
16— XLI.  30,  32,  33,  37-40,  42-45,  46i'-50%  51— XLII. 
],  2M%  6%  8-26,  28^-37.  XLIII.  14,  23\  XLV.  1%  2% 
3-4%  5^%  6-9,  10i^c.i2^  15.18^  21^-27.  XLVI.  1^-3"%  4,  5\ 
XLVIL  12.  XLVIII.  1-2%  8''.9%  10''-12,  15-16,  20-22. 
L.  15-22%  23-26. 

JE  [i.e..  Sections  concerning  which  it  cannot  now  be  deter- 
mined whether  they  belonged  to  /or  E,  or  how  they  have 
been  constructed  out  of  the  two ;  cf.  p.  33)  :  XXXV. 
16-22".  XXXVI.  31-39.  XXXVII.  2%  12-18,  23-25". 
XLI.  34-36. 

P  (Priests'  Code;  cf.  p.  106  ff.)  :  I.  1— 11.  1".  V.  1-28,  30-32. 
VI.  9-22.  VII.  6,  11,  13-16%  17«^  18-21,  24.  VIII.  1, 
2%  3'^-5,  13%  14-19.     IX.  1-17,  28— X.  7,20,  22-23,  31-32. 

15  * 


228      SURVEY  OF  THE  COMPOSITION  FROM  DIFFERENT  DOCUMENTS 

XT.  10-27,  28*,  31-32.  XII.  #,  5.  XIII.  6^^',  IP,  12'>i'. 
XVI.  1%  3,  15— XVII.  27.  XIX.  29.  XXI.  1\  2i'-5. 
XXIII.  XXV.  7-n%  12-17,  19-20,  26^  XXVI.  34-35. 
XXVIII.  1-9.  XKIX.  24,  281^  29.  XXX.  1%  4%  22^ 
XXXI.  18i><^'l  XXXIII.  18\  [XXXIV.  1%  2%  3%  4,  G, 
8-10,  13-18,  20-24,  25^.]^  XXXV.  6%  9-12%  13%  15, 
22'>-29.  XXXVI.  (j-8'',  40-43.  XXXVII.  1,  2^  XLI. 
46^  XLVI..a.7.  XLVII.  5^  6%  7-11,  27%  28.  XLVIII. 
3-6.     XLIX.  1%  281^  33^%     L.  12-13. 

R  Signifies  additions,  due  to  the  redactor  who  blended  /  and 
E  into  one  work  {JE^' ;  cf.  p.  61  f.),  or  to  the  one  who 
united  JE  and  Deuteronoroy  JED"^ ;  cf .  p.  94  f .),  or  finally 
to  the  one  who  joined  JED  and  P  (cf.  p.  119  f.) :  it  also 
signifies  verses  or  sections  originally  belonging  to  /,  E  or 
P,  but  subsequently  transplanted  by  a  redactor  from 
another  context  into  their  present  position:  II.  10-14.  IV. 
25-26.  VI.  7^.  VII.  3-^,23''.  IX.  18-19.  X.  9, 16-18%  24. 
XIV.  (cf.  the  Note  on  p.  119).  XV.  7-8,  12^'-16,  19-21. 
XVI.  8-10.  XX.  18.  XXI.  32",  34.  XXII.  14-18. 
XXV.  6.  XXVI.  r^  2^  3^-5,15,  18.  XXVII. 46.  XXVIII. 
W\  XXXI.  r>,  47,  48'^  49%  XXXII.  33.  XXXIV. 
26^  27-29.  XXXV.  5,  12'>,  13^  14.  XXXVI.  1-5,  8"- 
30.  XXXVII.  5'^  8\  XXXIX.  1^.  XLI.  50"-  XLII. 
28%  XLV.  19-2^".  XLVI.  1",  3%  5",  8-27.  XLVIII.  7. 
XLIX.  28%     L.  22". 


The  Second  Book  of  Moses  (Exodus). 

/,   to   whom   are  almost   unanimously   ascribed:  VIII.  4-10, 
11^  16-20,  24"-28.     IX.  1-7.     XI.  4-8.     XII.  21-27^  29, 


*  The  ascription  of  these  verses  to  P  is  disputed ;  others  think  that  they  belong 
to  a  still  later  time  ! 


OP  SEVERAL  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.        229 

30,  34,   38?  39.     The  groundwork  of   XIII.  3-lG,  but 
revised  by  JE'^  or  JED"^  (cf.  above,  on  Genesis,  under  E), 
21,  22.     XIV.  5,  6,  11-14,  19'>,  21*.     XVI.  4,  5,  19-21* 
25-30?  (others  say  P  or  else,  in  part   [v.  28-30]  JED'). 
XVIII.  1". 


J5';I.  15-20\  III.  10-15.  VII.  20^',  21\  VIII.  21-24-\  XI. 
1-3.  XIII.  17-19.  XIV.  7,  16?  19\  XV.  1-18-^  (the 
so-called  Song  at  the  Sea;  questionable  whether  it  was 
received  by  E  or  not  earlier  than  by  a  later  redactor 
[JE^?]),  20,  21.  XVII.  8-lG.  XVIII.  1%  2^  3-27. 
XX.  18-21  (originally  the  continuation  of  XIX.  15-19). 
XXXI.  18''.     XXXII.  1-G. 

JE:  I.  G,  7^  8-12,  14^  20''-22.  II.  1-23^  (v.  1-10  and  15 
almost  entirely  E;  v.  11-14  and  16-23^  almost  entirely  J). 
Iir.  1-9,  16-22.  IV.  V.  1— VI.  1.  VII.  14-18,  23-29. 
IX.  13-35.  X.  1-29  (of  which  /  claims  most  of  l-ll,  as 
well  as  16-19,  28-29).  XII.  31-33  (mainly  perhaps  E), 
35-37  (the  same),  42  ?  XIV.  9*,  10*,  20,  24-28,  30,  31. 
XV.  22-27  (in  25'',  26,  a  clear  trace  of  JED').  XVII. 
1*,  2-7.  XIX.  2"-25  (mostly  from  E).  XX.  1-17*  (the 
Decalogue ;  cf .  above,  p.  7  f. ;  if  already  admitted  by  E 
into  his  document,  it  is  however  not  without  traces  of 
JED'  and  possibly  [v.  11]  JEDP').  XX.  22— XXIII.  19^ 
the  so-called  "Book  of  the  Covenant ''  [so  called  from 
XXIV.  7  j  cf .  above,  p.  29  f .]  ;  the  prevalent  theory  is  that 
E  had  already  admitted  it  into  his  document.  XX.  22  and 
[on  account  of  the  address  in  the  plural]  XXII.  20'',  2 ) , 
23,  24'',  30  and  XXIII.  9'',  13  are  probably  to  be  considered 
redactional  additions.  XXIII.  20-23  (mainly  E,  but  w^ith 
traces  of  revision  by  JE'  and  probably  also  JED'). 
XXIV.  1-14,  15*,  18*.  XXXII.  7-14  (according  to  the 
prevalent  view,  composed  by  JE',  according  to  others, 
touched  also  by  JED'),  15-20  (mainly  E),  21-25.  XXXIII. 
(7-11   certainly  belong  to  E).     XXXIV.  1-28  (mainly  J, 


230      SURVEY  OP  THE  COMPOSITION  FROM  DIFFERENT  DOCUMENTS 

bat  with  expausionsj  in  v.  10-13  and  24  a  clear  trace  of 
JED'). 

P:  I.  1-5,  7^  13,  14.^  II.  23^'  ^'then  sighed,  &c/')-25.  YI. 
2-13,  14-30  (late  addition).  VII.  1-13,  19,  20-^  (to 
'^  commanded  ^^,  21",  22.  VIII.  1-3,  12-15.  IX.  8-12. 
XI.  9— XII.  20,  28,  40,  41,  43-51.  XIII.  1-2,  20.  XIY. 
1-4,  8,  9*  10^,  15,  16?  17,  18,  21^  22-23,  29.  XY.  19 
(redactional  gloss  on  the  Song  at  the  Sea).  XYI.  1-3. 
Q-S  (revised)';  9-18,  19-21^  22-24,  31-3G  (v.  36  a  later 
gloss).  XYII.  l-^(to"Rephidim^O.  XIX.  1, 2'\  XXI Y. 
15^,  16,  17,  18^.  XXY.— XXXI.  18"^  (in  XXIX.  9 
''Aaron  and  his  sons  ''  is  a  later  gloss).  XXXIY.  29-35 
(if  not  a  later  addition).  XXXY. — XL.  (more  recent 
parallels  to  XXY.— XXX). 


The  Third  Book  of  Moses  (Leviticus). 

The  contents  of  Leviticus  in  great  parfc  come  from  P  (though 
not  without  supplements  and  glosses,  as,  e.g.,  YI.  13 
[Eeb.j  20,  E7ig.,  ''in  the  day  when  he  is  anointed"], 
X.  16-20,  XIY.  31  [^'such  as  he  is  able  to  get"],  XXYIL, 
and  traces  of  revision).  Thus,  as  Benzinger^s  convincing 
analysis  has  shown,  Chap.  XYI.  is  composed  of  two  laws: 
V.  1-4,  6,  11a*,  12,  13^  34b  [29-34'-^],  containing  the  older; 
and  V.  5,  7-10,  14-28,  the  younger.  iJ,  the  so-called  Law 
of  Holiness  (see  above,  p.  100  f.),  forms  another  leading 
constituent,  but  in  it,  too,  it  is  impossible  to  mistake  traces 
of  later  revision  and  subsequent  blending  with  passages 
from  P.  Approximately,  Chaps.  XVII.-XXYI.  are  attri- 
buted to  H.  The  most  recent  analysis  by  Driver  and 
White,  in  P.  Haupt's  English  edition  of  the  Bible,  attri- 
butes the  following  to  H:—X.  10,  11 ;  XL  2i'-23,  41-47 ; 
XYII.-XXII.  (except  the  introductory  formulas,  such  as 


OF  SEVERAL  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.       231 

XVII.  1,  2;  XVIII.  1,  2-^;  XIX.  1,  2%  &c.,  and  a  few 
other  additions);  XXIII.  10''-12,  15-20,  22,  39",  40-43 ; 
XXIV.  15",  10%  17-21,  22";  XXV.  2"-10%  13-15,  17-22, 
24,  25,  35-40%  43,  47,  53,  55 ;  XXVI. 

There  are  no  traces  in  Leviticus  of  /  and  E  or  JE^  and 
JED'. 


The  Fourth  Book  of  Moses  (Numbers). 
/  Amongst  other  passages  :  X.  29-32,  XXI.  1-3. 

E  Amongst  other  passages:  XXI.  4*,  5-9;  XXXII.  16,  17. 

JE:  X.  33-36,  XL  (mainly  from  /).  XII.  (probably  ^  for  the 
most  part).  XIII.  17''-20,  22-24,  26^  27-31,  32^  33. 
XIV.  1",  3,  4,  8,  9,  11-25  (if  from  E;  others  hold  that 
the  passages  come  from  JE"^  or  JED'),  30-33,  39-45. 
XVI.  1",  2*,  12-15,  25,  26,  27  -32%  33,  34.  XX.  1",  3% 
4,  5,  7",  8,  9,  10",  11,  13-21.  XXI.  IT'-Sl,  32-35  ?  (later 
addition  to  JE  ?  perhaps  rather  to  JED').  XXII.  2— 
XXV.  5  (in  Chap.  XXII.  22-34  contains  J's  account; 
Chap.  XXIII.  comes  chiefly  from  E.,  Chap.  XXIV.  from  /. 
Only  Chap.  XXIV.  20-24  is  regarded  by  almost  everyone 
as  a  later  addition).  XXXII.  1",  2%  3,  5  (6-15,  20-27,  in  a 
later  revised  form,  as  also  v.  31-33  probably  is),  34-42 
(probably  in  great  part  from  E;  in  v.  38  the  words 
"their  names  being  changed^'  [in  speech]  is  evidently 
a  marginal  gloss,  required  to  avoid  the  word  Baal). 

P:  I.-X.  28  (not  without  subsequent  additions).  XIII.  1-1 7=», 
21,  25,  26^  32^.  XIV.  1%  2,  5-7,  10,  26-29,  34-38.  XV. 
(the  close,  v.  37-41,  perhaps  from  11,  see  above,  on  Levi- 
ticus).    In  Chaps.  XVI.  and  XVIII.  two  P-accounts  arc 


232       SURVEY  OF  THE  COMPOSITION  FROM  DIFFERENT  DOCUMENTS 

interwoven  with  JE's  (see  above).  To  the  one  belongs, 
in  the  main:  XVI.  2*,  3-7%  19-24,  27%  32^  XVII.  6-28; 
to  the  Other:  XVI.  1%  7%  8-11,  16-18,  35— XVII.  5. 
Further:  XVIII.  1— XIX.  22,  XX.  1--^  (to  ^'month^O.  2,  3^ 
6,  7^  10%  12,  22-29;  XXI.  10,  11^;  XXII.  1;  XXV.  6— 
XXXI;  XXXII.  1^^  2^?  4,  18,  19,  28-30;  XXXIII. 
(compilation  by  one  of  the  latest  redactors,  for  the  most 
part  founded  on  P) ;  XXXIV.— XXXVI. 


The  Fifth  Book  of  Moses  (Deuteronomy). 

On  the  controversy  respecting  the  extent  of  the  so-called 
"Original  Deuteronomy,^'  cf.  above,  p.  63 f.  The  following 
passages  are  there  regarded  as  constituents  of  the  book 
in  its  older  form  (D):  IV.  44-49;  V.  1— X.  5,  10— XI.  28; 
XII.-XXVI.  15;  XXVIII.  1-68;  XXXI.  9-13. 

These  are  regarded  as  later  additions  (Dt)  :  I.  1 — IV. 
40;  XL  29-32;  XXVII.  1-4,  8-26  ;  XXVIII.  69— XXXI. 
8,  24-30  [XXXII.  1-43;  on  which  cf.  above,  p.  93]; 
XXXII.  44-47;  XXXIV.  l^  5,  6,  11-12.  '  Some  of  the 
still  later  passages  are  XIV.  1-21 ;  XXIV.  8,  9 ;  XXVI. 
16-19  ?  XXXIV.  2,  3. 

These  must  have  come  from  JE :  XXVII.  5-7  (to 
speak  precisely,  probably  from  E) ;  XXXI.  14-23  (not 
without  traces  of  revision)  [XXXIII.,  see  above,  p.  40  f.]  ; 
XXXIV.  1%  4,  10. 

From  P:  IV.  41-43;  X.  6-9;  XXXII.  48-52;  XXXIV. 
1%  7-9. 


The  Book  of  Joshua. 

J"(Jahwist:   see  above,  on  Genesis),  amongst  other  passages : 
XV.  14-19,  63;  XVII.  11-18;  XIX.  47. 


OP    SEVERAL    BOOKS    OP    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  233 

E  (Eloliist)  :  I.  1,  2^  10,  11^.  XXIV.  (with  numerous  traces 
of  a  later,  probably  Dcuteroiiomistic  hand ;  thus  in  v.  1'', 
2,  6,  7,  8,  10,  11,  13,  26%  31 ;  in  v.  29''  a  trace  of  P  must 
be  found). 

JE  (Sec  above,  on  Genesis,  and  c£.  the  remark  below  on  Dt)  : 
II.  1-9%  12-23.  III.  1-3,  4"-G,  8-IV.  12,  15-18,  20. 
V.  2*,  3,  8,  9,  13  to  VII.  20  (Chap.  VII.  substantially 
J,  but,  like  Chap.  VI.,  not  without  traces  of  Dt).  VIII. 
3-26,  28,  29.  IX.  3-15%  16,  22,  23^  24-26.  X.  P*, 
3-24  (in  12''  and  13  a  citation  from  the  ^' Book  of  the 
Upright  Ones";  cf.  above,  p.  2),  26,  27.  XI.  1-9 
(with  traces  of  iJt  in  v.  2,  3,  6,  8),  11''.     XIX.  9,  49,  50. 

Dt  (Deuteronomistic  redactor,  of  whose  hand  there  are  mani- 
fold traces  also  in  the  passages  assigned  to  JE)  :  I.  3-9, 
12-18.  II.  9''-ll,  24.  III.  7.  IV.  14,  21-21.  V.  3. 
VIII.  1,  2,  27,  30— IX.  2,  27*^  (a  dislocated  clause). 
X.  1^  2,  25,  28-43.  XI.  10-20,  21-23?  (or  added 
later?).  XII.— XIII.  14.  XIV.  6-15  (perhaps  founded 
on  E).  XXI.  43-45  (in  the  Ileb.  text,  v.  41-43,  because 
36,  37  are  missing).     XXII.  1-6.     XXIII. 

P  (Priests'  Code):  IV.  13,  19.  V.  10-12.  IX.  15'',  17-21. 
XIII.  15-33  (with  traces  of  a  later  hand).  XIV.  1-5. 
XV.  1-12,  20-44,  48-62.  XVI.  4-8.  XVII.  1%  3,  4,  9*, 
10\  XVIII.  1,  11%  12-28.  XIX.  1-8,  10-46,  48,  51  (the 
entire  chapter  was  revised  by  R,  who  worked  with 
JE  before  him).  XX.  1-3,  7-9.  XXI.  1-11%  13"-40. 
XXII.  9-34  (the  text  of  P  doubtless  rests  on  an  older 
foundation,  but  was  revised  by  a  more  recent  hand). 
XXIV.  29'\ 

B  (Latest  redactor  and  isolated  later  additions)  :  III.  4'\ 
V.  4-7.  IX.  23^  27'-^'^  XV.  13,  45-47.  XVII.  1''  and 
2,  (founded  on  JE),  5?  6.  XX.  4-6.  XXI.  11"-13\ 
XXII.  7,  8. 


234        SURVEY  OF  THE  COMPOSITION  FROM  DlFE^ERENT  DOCUMENTS 

In  XV.  26-28  the  names  ''  Shema,  Moladali,  Beth-pelet, 
Hazar-sliual,  Beer-sheba^  and  tbe  places  belonging  to 
tbem'^  were  interpolated  from  Neli.  xi.  26  ff.,  and  tliere- 
fore  are  not  reckoned  in  v.  32.  In  XVII.  9  the  second 
clause  comes  from  another  context. 


The  Book  of  Judges. 

/  (Jahwist;  see  above,  on  Genesis):  I.  P'-S,  5-7,  9-17,  19  — 
II.  1%  5'',  23  ?  (this  account  of  J'^,  which  contains  for  the 
most  part  parallels  to  the  Book  of  Joshua,  is  now  trans- 
ferred by  the  introductory  words  into  the  time  after  the 
death  of  Joshua.  In  II.  1^',  5%  the  Jahwist's  original 
narrative  has  been  displaced  by  another). 

R^  (An  older  stratum  of  the  ancient  Hero-Stories  *),  constitut- 
ing the  nucleus  of  the  Book  of  Judges ;  see  above, 
p.  23):  VIII.  4-10%  (to  '^Karkor'O,  11-21,  24-27% 
29-32.     IX.  ?  (in  any  case  from  a  very  ancient  source). 

H  (Hero-Stories,  from  the  early  part  of  the  Kingly  period ; 
see  above,  p.  21  ff.)  :  III.  15'^-26  (questionable  whether 
from  the  same  hand),  27  and  28  ?  IV.  4-22.  V.  1-31^ 
(Song  of  Deborah  ;  see  above,  p.  4f.).  VI,  2^  3^  4-6^ 
11-32,  33^,  36-40?  (perhaps  stood  originally  after  v.  17). 
VII.  1*  2-11,  13-22,  23-25  ?  (if  23,  24,  25'^  were  not  from 
Ri).  VIII.  1-3,  22-23?  X.  S\  XI.  1-11  (with  traces 
of  revision  by  Ri),  30— XII.  6.  XIII.  2,  3,  b'^-T\  7^-13% 
14^'— XIV.  4%  5-18,  19^— XV.  19.     XVI.  1-31-''^ 


*  Part  of  the  critics  (see  above,  the  footnote  to  p.  27)  consider  the  various 
strata  of  H  to  be  continuations  of  the  Jahwistic  (J)  and  Elohistic  {E)  sources 
employed  in  the  Pentateuch. 


OF  SEVERAL  BOOKS  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.        235 

ri  (fragments  of  a  list  of  Judges^  from  the  later  Kingly  period  ; 
see  above,  p.  45)  :  X.  1-5.     XII.  8-15.     XV.  20. 

Ri  (Compiler  of  tlie  Deuteronoraistic  Book  of  Judges,  wliicli 
was  constructed  on  the  foundation  of  IT  and  ri ;  see 
above,  pp.  21  if.,  94  f. ) :  II.  G-12,  14-16,  18-22.*  III. 
4-10,  12-15%  27  and  28?  29,  30.  IV.  1-3,  23,  24. 
V.  31^  VI.  1,  2%  6",  33%  34?  35.  VII.  12.  VIII.  10% 
27%  28,  33-35.  X.  6,  7^  8''-18.  XII.  7.  XIII.  1. 
XIV.  4%     XVI.  3P. 


N  and  N^  (Pre-Deuteronomic  compilers  of  a  few  narratives 
which  now  form  the  Appendix  to  the  Book  of  Judges ;  see 
above,  p.  24  ).  The  following  must  belong  to  N: — XVII. 
1,  5,  7^  8-11,  13.  XVIII.  1'^  2^  3-6,  7^  8-10%  11-13, 
14^  15^  16,  17^  18^  19,  20^  21-29,  31.  XIX.  1^  2-30. 
Chaps.  XX.  and  XXI.  also  originally  came  from  this  source, 
but  have  been  thoroughly  revised  by  a  hand  related  to  the 
Priests'  Code  (P) .  The  traces  of  a  duplicate  narrative  are 
clearly  discernible  in  the  accretions,  XX.  11,  14  (pro- 
bably a  continuation  properly  of  3"),  36''  (36''-46  form  an 
evident  parallel  to  v.  29-35^),  48.  XXI.  9.  In  the  older 
source  the  assemblies  of  the  people  take  place  at  Mizpah, 
in  the  younger  at  Bethel.  Budde  (Die  Biicher  Richter 
u.  Samuel,  p.  151)  attributes  to  the  Mizpah-Source  XX. 


*  Others  hold  that  Chap.  II.  16  ff.  contains  numerous  elements  from  E 
(see  the  note  on  p.  234) ;  Moore  (Commentary  on  Judges,  New  York,  1895, 
p.  63  f.)  assigns  to  that  source  v.  6,  8-10,  13,  U^  16,  17,  20,  21 ;  III.  1%  3,  4 ; 
but  V.  23%  III.  2,  perhaps,  also  5  and  6  to  J,  and  almost  all  the  rest  to  the 
Deuteronomistic  redactor.  In  the  Gideon  Histories  he  attributes  to  J,  VI.  2-6, 
in  part;  11-24,  34.  VII.  1,  9-11,  13-15,  16-20,  in  part;  21,  22^*.  VIII.  4-21, 
24-27'\  in  substance ;  30,  31.  IX.  :  to  E  VI.  2-6,  in  part ;  7-10,  25,  32,  33, 
36-40,  35^.  VII.  2-8,  16-20  in  part;  22%  22^*,  23?,  24,  25.  VIII.  1-3,  29. 
In  Chaps.  XVII.  and  XVIII.,  the  account  which  we  have  followed— Kittel's 
analysis — in  designating  N  is  thought  by  Moore  to  belong  in  all  probability  to 
J,  the  original  form  of  the  narrative  in  Chap.  XIX.  £f.,  perhaps  also  being  his 
work. 


236         SURVEY  OF  THE  COMPOSITION  FROM  DIFFERENT  DOCUMENTS 

^''^  1",  S^'-IO,  3%  14,  19,  29,  36^'-38,  40-42%  and  part  of 
43-48;  to  the  Bethel-Source,  1"^  2,  11-18,  15,  17,  20-28, 
30-33%  34%  35-36%  and  a  part  of  43-48. 

m  XVIT.  2-4,  6,  12.  XVIII.  1%  2^,  7^  10'',  14^  15^  18^ 
20^,  30. 

R  (The  post-exilic  editor  or  editors  of  our  present  Book  of 
Judges;  see  above  p.  120)  :  I.  1%  4,  8,  18.  II.  T'-S^ 
13,  17.  III.  1-3,  11,  31.  VI.  7-10.  X.  7^-.  XI.  29.  XIII. 
4,  5%  7",  13^  14<\  XVII.  7^.  XVIII.  17^.  XIX.  1^. 
XX.  27,  28?     XXI.  U\  25. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  latest  glosses  : — VI.  26, 
28  (^^the  second  ^^);  XII.  4^'  (^^Ye  are  fugitives  of 
Ephraim,^^  &c. :  in  v.  1  the  Ephraimite  attack  is  explained 
quite  differently) ;  XVIII.  17  (the  words  ^^came  in  thither, 
and  took  the  graven  image,  and  the  ephod,  and  the 
teraphim,  and  the  molten  image,^^  as  well  as  "  with  the 
six  hundred  men  girt  with  weapons  of  war'^). 

?  Passages  of  doubtful  origin  :  XL  12-28.     XIV.  19«\ 


The  First  Book  of  Samuel. 

S  (Saul-Source,  a  Judahite  or  Benjamite  history  of  Saul, 
dating  from  the  tenth  or  ninth  century  ;  cf .  above  p.  27  f.)  : 
IX.  1-8,  10— X.  7,  9-16.  XII.  1-8%  9-11,  15.  XIII. 
2-7%  15"-18,  23.     XIV.  1-46. 

Da  (David-Source;  in  all  probability  a  Judahite  history  of 
David,  contemporary  with  S,  perhaps  froni  the  same 
hand;  cf.  above,  p.  27  f . ) :  XVI.  14-23.     XVIII.  6^  7, 


OP  SEVERAL  BODKS  OP  THE    OLD   TESTAMENT.  237 

S^'-ll  (v.  &'  and  8%  10,  11  are  not  in  tho  Greek  Bible, 
and  perhaps  come  from  another  source),  20,  21%  22-2G\ 
27.  XX.  1'^.3,  11,  18-39.  XXI.  1.  XXIII.  1-5,  7-13, 
19— XXIV.  13,  15-23.  XXV.  r'-44.  XXVII.  XXVIII. 
1-2,  4-lG,  19''-25  (moreover  the  entire  section,  XXVIII. 
3-25,  should  come,  in  order  of  time,  after  Chap.  XXX.). 
XXIX.-XXXI. 

SS  (A  considerably  later  history  of  Samuel  and  Saul, 
probably  Ephraimite,  a  combination  of  diverse  traditions, 
perhaps  dating  from  the  second  half  of  the  eighth  century ; 
cf.  above,  p.  45  f.) :  I.  1-5%  6-28.  II.  11-22%  23-2G.  III. 
1.21^  VIII.  X.  17-24.  XV.  ?  XVII.  1-11,  12-13,  in  part 
(the  text  there  is  in  utter  confusion),  14^^ — XVIII.  5.  In 
part  of  this  last  section  it  is  indeed  questionable  whether 
we  have  SS,  especially  in  the  verses  and  portions  of  verses 
not  found  in  the  Greek  Bible,  viz.,  XVIL  12''-14, 16-31, 38'', 
41,  48^  50,  55— XVIII.  5  (at  XVIL  55  fF.  it  is  evidently 
intended  to  narrate  the  first  meeting  of  Saul  and  David, 
whilst  according  to  XVIL  32  ff.  there  had  already  been  a 
conversation  before  the  fight.  54  and  57  also  could  not 
have  stood  side  by  side  in  one  source).  XVIII.  12-19  and 
28-30  (in  these  two  sections  also  the  Greek  text  has  not 
12%  17-19,  29%  30).  XIX.  1,  2,  4-17.  XXL  2-10. 
XXII.     XXVI. 

E  (A  narrative  compiled  in  the  kingdom  of  Ephraim  in  the 
ninth  or  eighth  century;  cf.  above,  p.  40)*:  IV.  1''- 
18%  19-21.     V.     VI.  1-14,  16,  18'^— VIL  1. 


*  As  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  so  here,  several  critics  (Schrader,  Cornill,  Ac, 
and  last  of  all  Budde  in  "  The  Books  of  Samuel  in  Hebrew,"  the  eighth  part  of 
Paul  Haupt's  English  Edition  of  the  Bible,  Lpzg.,  1894),  have  apportioned  the 
contents  of  the  four  ancient  documents  which  we  have  distinguished  above 
amongst  the  various  strata  of  tlie  Jahwistic  (J)  and  Elohistic  (E)  sources  which 
we  have  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Joshua. 
Thus  Budde  holds  that  the  sources  designated  S  and  Da  by  us  are  in  the  main 


238        SURVEY  OF  THE  COMPOSITION  FROM  DIFFERENT  DOCUMENTS 

Ri  (The  Deuteronomistic  editor  of  that  form  of  the  Book  of 
Judges  [see  above^  on  the  Book  of  Judges]  the  conclusion 
of  which  we  probably  now  have  in  1  Sam.  xii.). 


Dt  (Deuteronomistic  revision  of  the  histories  of  Samuel^  Saul, 
and  David;  see  above,  p.  94  f.)  :  II.  27-31%  32%  33-36. 
YII.  2^^-16.    XIY.  47-51? 


?  (Passages  of  unknown  origin):    II.   T'-IO.      XVIII.   21% 
XX.  4-10,  12-17.    XXI.  11-16. 


R  (Redactional  additions  of  various  kinds,  part  of  them 
probably  early,  and  appended  when  the  ancient  sources 
were  welded  together,  part  of  them  not  added  till  post- 
exilic  times;  see  above,  p.  120)  :  I.  5%  II.  1«.  III.  2P. 
IV.  1^18^22.  VI.  15, 17, 18".  VII.  2%  17.  IX.  9.  X.  8, 
15-27.  XL  12-14.  XIII.  1,  7M5%  19-22.  XIV.  52? 
XVI.  1-13.  XVII.  12%  15.  XVIII.  6%  8%  26%  XIX. 
3,18-24.  XX.  1%  40-42.  XXIII.  6,  14«%  15-18.  XXV. 
la.     XXVIII.  3,  17,  18. 

"We  regard  the  following  as  the  latest  additions 
(glosses) :— II.  22^  31%  32%  VI.  19  (the  words  ^^ fifty 
thousand  men '').  XI.  8%  XVI,  19"^  ("  who  is  with  the 
sheep  ^0.  XVII.  14%  XXIII.  14%  XXIV.  14.  XXVIII. 
19  a.  XXX.  9%  XXXI.  7  {''  and  they  that  were  beyond 
Jordan"). 


identical  with  J;  our  E  (chaps,  iv.-vi.)  with  E^ ;  SS  with  the  Pentateuchal  E~, 
or  (in  many  instances  from  chap.  xvii.  onwards)  with  E^,  less  frequently 
(almost  the  whole  of  chap,  xxii.)  with  J^  In  harmony  with  this  a  portion  of 
the  redactional  additions  are  ascribed  to  the  combiner  of  J  and  E  [JE^]. 
As  to  the  rest,  apart  from  the  dispute  whether  the  main  documents  reach 
to  1  Kings  ii. ,  considerable  agreement  has  been  reached  in  the  analysis  of  the 
sources. 


OF  SEVERAL  BOOKS   OP  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  239 


The  Second  Book  of  Samuel. 

Je  (Jerusalem- Source,  an  old  history  of  David,  written  most 
probably  in  Jerusalem,  in  any  case  in  Judab,  dating 
from  the  time  of  Solomon  or  Reboboam ;  see  above, 
p.  25  ff)*  :  V.  3,  6'^i>,  7%  8%  9-16.  VI.  IX.— XL  XII. 
1-9,  13 — XX.  22  (except  some  glosses;  cf.  on  R). 

Da  (See  on  1  Sam.)  :  I.  1-4,  11,  12,  17-27  (on  the  Elegy, 
V.  18  ff.,  cf.  above,  pp.  2,  lOf).  II.  1-9,  10'^-12, 17— III.  1, 
6^-29,  31-39  (on  the  Elegy,  v.  33 '>  f.,  cf.  above,  p.  10  f.). 
lY.  1-3,  5-12.  V.  1,  2,  17-25.  XXI.  15-22.  XXIII. 
8-39. 

8S  (See  above,  on  1  Sam.) :  I.  6-10,  13-16. 

Vt  (Deuteronomistic  redactor):  VII.  1-12,  14-29  (perhaps 
founded  on  an  exemplar  furnished  by  Je). 

?  (Passages  of  unknown  origin)  :  II.  13-16.  III.  2-5. 
VIII.  1-6%  7-10,  13-14%  16-18.  XXI.  1,  2%  3  (from 
"What '0-14.  XXII.  2b-51  (of  the  same  tenor  as 
Ps.  xviii.).     XXIII.  lb-7.     XXIV. 

n  (See  above,  on  1  Sam.)  :  I.  5.  II.  10%  11.  III.  6%  30.  IV.  4. 
V.  4,  5,  7\  VII.  13.  VIII.  6^  11,  12,  14'^  15.  XII. 
7i'-9-  ?  9^^-12.  XIV.  15-22  ?  XX.  23-26.  XXI.  2^  3  ^ 
(to  "  Gibeonites  '').     XXII.  1,  2^     XXIII.  1^ 

These    are  probably   to    be    considered   as   the   latest 
additions  (glosses):    V.  6%  8''.      XIII.  8%  38^^  (becomes 


*  Budde  and  others  (see  the  preceding  footnote)  maintain  that  in  this  source 
also  there  are  elements  of  the  Jahwistic  historical  work. 


240      SURVEY  OF  THE  COMPOSITION  FROM  DIFFERENT  DOCUMENTS 

superfluous  if  we  put  37^  into  its  correct  position  after 
37^^).  XV.  24*  (additions:  ''and  all  the  Levites  with 
him^^  [instead  of  ''and  Abiathar";  cf.  ver.  29],  also 
"of  the  Covenant*^  [see  v.  29!];  the  words,  "and 
Abiathar  went  up'"^  are  now  incomprehensible).  XXI.  9* 
(the  words  "  at  the  beginning  of  barley-harvest^^). 


The  First  Book  of  Kings. 
Da  (See  above,  on  1  Sam.)  :  I.,  II.  13-2G,  28-46. 

Sa  (Extracts  from  a  biography  of  Solomon :  the  latter  may 
have  been  part  of  the  great  Book  of  Kings,  mentioned 
under  K)  :  III.  5-13?  16-28?  IV.  1-4%  5-12,  13^^ 
14-19^  V.  2,  3,  6?  7-15,24,25,27,28,29-32?  VI.  2-6,  8, 
10,  15,  16^  17,  23-27,  31,  33,  34,  36,  37,  38*.  VII.  1-46, 
51.  VIII.  1-4^  6^  10-13  (on  v.  12  and  13,  cf.  above, 
p.  2).  IX.^i  ir^-18,  24?  X.  1-10?  13?  16-20%  28-20? 
XI.  7^  14-28,  40. 


K  (Extracts  from  the  "  Book  of  the  Histories  of  the  Kings  of 
Judah/^  or  "Book  of  the  Histories  of  the  Kings  of 
Israel/^  which  is  cited  by  Bt  for  almost  Qwery  king  of 
Judah  and  Israel:  on  this  so-called  "great  King's 
Book,"  cf.  above,  p.  70  f.  We  here  partly  put  down 
to  K  certain  sections,  the  origin  of  which  from  the 
"great  King's  Book"  may  be  questioned,  but  which 
bear  more  or  less  of  the  stamp  of  authentic  tradition)  : 
XII.  2,  1  (the  transposition  of  these  verses  resulted  from 
the  interpolation  of  3%,  3'^-ll,  12*  ("Jeroboam 
and''  is  an  addition),  13,  14,  16,  18-20,  25.  The  basis  of 
XIV.  1-18;  [further]  25-28.  XV.  16-22.  XVI.  21- 
22,  24,  34  ?  (on  other  traces  of  K  cf.  on  Bt). 


OF    SKVKRAL    BOOKS    OF    TTII<J    OLD    TESTAMENT.  241 

Dt  (Deuteronomist :  tlic  principal  compiler  of  our  present 
''  Book  of  Kings/'  who  wroto  under  the  influence  of 
Deuteronomy  ;  on  this  cf.  above,  p.  72  f.)  :  II.  1-9  (v.  5-9 
probably  on  an  ancient  groundwork),  27.  III.  1,  2,  4, 
14.  IV.  13'',  19'>— V.  1,  16-23,  26.  VI.  7,  9,  11-14  (if  not 
Z),  18-22,  28-30,  32,  35,  38^.  VIII.  2^  3'',  9,  14-43, 
52-64,  65*  m,  IX.  10,  11«,  19-2J,  25-28.  X.  11-12? 
14-15?  20'>-27.  XI.  1-6,  7^  8,  9%  11-13,  29-39  (perhaps 
founded  on  K;    see   above),    41-43.      XII.    15,   26-31. 

XIII.  33'',  34.     XIV.  1-18  (founded  on  7v). 

From  XIV.  23  onwards  we  ascribe  to  TJt  all  the 
formulse  which  introduce  or  close  the  accounts  of  the 
individual  reigns,  although  they  contain  all  kinds  of 
historical  notices  which  doubtless  come  entirely  from  K : 

XIV.  19-24,  29-31  (after  K:  20,  21,  30).  XV.  1-5"'', 
7-15,  23-34  (after  Ji::  2,  7,  10,  12,  13,  15?  23,  25,  27, 
29,  33.  XVI.  5,  6,  7?  8-11,  14-20,  23,  25-33  (after  K: 
8-11,  15-18,  23,  29.  XXI.  20''.22,  24.  XXII.  39-54 
(after  7i;  39,42,47-50,  52), 


I)t  =^  (The  author,  also  Deuteronomistic,  of  certain  additions  to 
the  Book  of  Kings  compiled  by  Bt,  dating  from  the 
second  half  of  the  Babylonian  Exile ;  on  this  cf.  above, 
p.  72f.):  III.  3,  15.  V.  4-5(orZ?).  VI.  1.  VIII. 
44-51.     IX.  1-9.     XL  9'',  10.     XVI.  12,  13. 


?  (Information  additional  to  that  given  in  the  adjoining  main 
account)  :  IX.  23. 


(Histories  of  Prophets  ;  extracts  from  a  work  relating  to 
Elijah,  dating  from  the  ninth  or  eighth  century ;  on 
it  cf.  above,  p.  41  )  :  XVII.  1— XVIII.  30,  32''— XIX. 
9%  11^  C^And  Jahweh  passed  by,''  kn.),  12-21.  XXI. 
1-20%  27-29. 

16 


242       SURVEY  OF  THE  COMPOSITIOX  FE031  DIFFERENT  DOCUMENTS 

E  (Ephraimite  narratives ;  extracts  from  a  liistorical  work 
which  appeared  in  the  northern  kingdom,  dating  probably 
from  the  ninth  century;  see  above,  p.  43)  :  XX.  1-12, 
15-21  (in  case  15-17%  19,  21^  are  not  to  be  ascribed  to 
Z),  22,  23-25  ?  26-27,  29%  29^^  and  30^  ?  30^  31-34. 
XXII.  1-34,  35^  (see  on  Z),  3G,  37. 

R  (See  above,  on  1  Sam.)  :  II.  10-12. 

Z  (Subsequent  additions.  A  part  of  them  were  perhaps 
adopted  even  by  Dt  or  Dt^.  But  most  of  them  were 
doubtless  not  inserted  till  after  the  Exile  in  the  King's 
Book  arranged  by  Dt  [or  Dt  ~]  ;  see  above,  p.  70  f.)  : 
lY.  41',  13^^.  V.  4-5?  VI.  16*.  VII.  47-50.  VIII. 
1^  2^  4^  5,  6*,  7-8?  65*.  IX.  22.  XII.  3%  12*  (the 
words  ^^  Jeroboam,  &c.''),  17,  21-24,  32  — XIII.  33». 
XV.  5^.  XVI.  1-4?  XVIII.  31-32^  XIX.  91^-11'-^  (to 
^^  stand  upon  the  mount  before  Jahweh  ^').  XX.  13,  14 
(on  15-21  see  above,  on  E),  22-25?  28,  29i',  and  30a? 
35-43.  XXI.  23,  25,  26.  XXII.  35^  (the  words  '^  and  the 
blood  ran  out  of  the  wound  into  the  bottom  of  the 
chariot ''),  38. 

The  following  are  probably  to  be  considered  quite  late 
glosses  (and  therefore  for  the  most  part  are  not  in  the 
Greek  translation)  :  IV.  4^',  13  (^'^the  villages  of  Jair,  the 
son  of  Manasseh,  which  are  in  Gilead  ''),  VI.  5  {''  round 
about  the  walls  of  the  house  ^0«  VII.  24  ('^compassing 
the  sea  round  about  "),  42^  VIII.  65  ('^  and  seven  days, 
fourteen  days^^).  XI.  24  ("when  David  made  the 
slaughter  amongst  the  Aramaeans  ^0.  XII.  27^  ("and 
return  to  Rehoboam,  king  of  Judah^').  32  ("and  he 
went  up  unto  the  altar"  :  cf.v.  33).  XIII.  23  ("of  the 
prophet  who  had  brought  him  back'').  XIV.  31  (cf.  v. 
21).  XV.  6  (cf.  XIV.  30).  XVI.  11  ("he  left  him  not 
a  single  man  child,"   see  XIV.  10).      XVII.  6  (original 


OF    SEVERAL    r,OOK>S    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  2.1:3 

text:  "  bread  in  the  morning  and  flesli  in  tlie  evening  ^^). 
XVIII.  10  (^^  and  the  four  hundred  prophets  of  the 
Asherah '' ;  of.  v.  22  and  especially  v.  40,  where  nothing 
is  said  about  the  prophets  of  the  Ashera).  XXII.  2b'' 
(from  Micah  I.  2,  occasioned  by  an  erroneous  confound- 
ing of  the  two  prophets),  31  (the  number  32  comes  from 
1  Kings  XX.  24). 


The  Second  Book  of  Kings. 

K  (See  above,  on  1  Kings)  :  I.  1.  VIII.  20-22.  X.  32,  33. 
XL  1-9,  11,  12,  18^20.  XII.  5-16  ?  18,  19.  XIII,  22, 
24,  25.  XIV.  8-14.  XV.  16,  19,  20.  XVI.  5-18. 
XVIII.  17— XIX.  9^  36,  37.  XXIII.  29-30?  33-35? 
XXIV.  1  ?   (concerning  other  traces  of  K  cf.  on  Dt), 


IC~  The  probably  somewhat  more  recent  parallel,  XIX.  10 
(from  the  second  clause  onwards) -20,  32-35,  to  the  main 
account  in  XVIII.  13  If. 

Dt  (See  above,  on  1  Kings)  :  I.  18.     III.  1-3.     VIII.  16-19,  j 

23-29   (after  K:  26).     IX.   7-10%  14,   15%  28%  29,  S6^  ' 

(-  which  he  spoke,  &c.''),  37.  X.  10  ?  17,  28-31,  34-36. 
XIL  1-4  (after  K:  2),  20-22  (after  E :  21-22).  XIII. 
1-3,  7-11  (after  K:  7).  XIV.  1-7  (after  K:  2,  5-7), 
15-29  (after  K:  19-22,  25).  XV.  1-15  (after  K:  2,  5, 
10,   14),  17,    18,    21-38    (after  K:    25,  29,  30,  33,  35'>).  I 

XVI.  1-4  (after  iT;  3  ?),  19,  20.     XVII.  1-6,  18,  21-28),  I 

41  (after  K:  3-6,  24-28).  XVIII.  1-13  (after  IC:  2,  4% 
78^  ?     With  V.  9-11   cf.  XVII.  5,  6).     XIX.  9".     XX.  | 

(founded  on  an  exemplar  in  K :  v.  7  should  follow  v.  11).  i 

XX.  1,  2,  16-26  (after  K:  1,  18,  19,  23,  24).     XXII.  1-4%  | 

5%  8,  9-%  10-14,  20%  XXIII.  1-4^  (to  ^' the  keepers  of 
the  door^'),  6-7%  8%  9-13,  21-25,  28,  31,  32,  36,  37 
(possibly  31,  36  are  after  K). 


244    saRVEY  OP  the  composition  from  different  documents 

Bi^  (See  above,  on  1  Kings)  :  XIII.  4-6  ?  23  ?  XVII.  7-17, 
19,  20,  29.34^  XXL  7-15.  XXII.  15-20'\  XXIII.  26, 
27.     XXIV.  2-12,  15— XXV.  30. 


?  (See  above,  on  1  Kings)  :  XI.  13-18\  XVIII.  14-16  (from 
a  very  good  source).  XIX.  2 J -31  (from  a  collection  of 
oracles  of  Isaiali?).     XXIII.  8'^  15,  19,  20. 

Pr  (A  sti-atiini  of  prophetical  narratives  relating  to  Elislia, 
probably  from  different  hands,  somewhat  younger  than 
the  Elisha-Stories  distinguished  in  1  Kings  under  the 
symbol  Pr  ;  see  above,  p.  41  f.)  :  II.,  IV.— VI.  23.  VIII. 
1-15.     XIIL  14-21. 

E  (See  above,  on  1  Kings)  :  III.  4-27  ?  VI.  24— VII.  17^  IX. 
1-6,  10i'-13,  15''-28'-^^  30-36  (to  ''  word  of  Jahweh '').  X. 
1-6%  7-9,  11-16,  18-27. 

Z  (See  above,  on  1  Kings)  :  I.  2-17.  VII.  17''-20.  X.  6'^? 
XI.  10.  XII.  17?  XVII.  34i'-40.  XXI.  3-6.  XXII.  4'', 
o\  6,  7,  9^  XXIII.  4^  (see  above,  on  Dt.),  5,  7'',  14,  16- 
18.     XXIV.  13,  14. 

We  regard  the  following  as  some  of  the  quite  late 
glosses  (see  above,  on  1  Kings)  : — I.  16  {'^  there  is  no 
God,  &c.,'^  inserted  from  v.  6).  II.  15  ("in  Jericho"). 
III.  19  ("and  every  choice  city  ").  VI.  22  and  23  ("and 
two  changes  of  raiments").  VIII.  1  (last  clause).  IX. 
4  ("the  servant  of  the  prophet").  X.  19  ("all  his 
worshippers,"  from  v.  21).  XI.  6,  7  ("  about  the  king  "), 
11  ("by  the  king  round  about"),  13  ("  the  guard  "), 
15  ("the  captains  of  hundreds"  and  "between  the 
ranks"),  19  ("and  all  the  people  of  the  land").  XIIL 
12-13  (at  XIV.  15,  16,  these  verses  are  in  their  right 
place) .     XVIII.  1 7  ("  the  Tartan  and  the  Kabsaris,  &c."  ; 


Oir    SEVillUL  BOOKS    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  245 

cf.  Isa.  xxxvi.  2).  XIX.  10-^  (to  '^  Judali.''  The  message 
consists  of  a  letter  !).  XX.  11  {''  to  tlie  steps  which  it 
had  gone  down^';  from  Isa.  xxxviii.  8).  XXII.  4,  8  and 
XXIII.  4  :  the  original  text  no  doubt  ran  simply,  "  the 
priest  H.",  as  at  XXII.  10,  12,  &c.— XXIII.  33  ^^  that 
he  might  not  reign  in  Jerusalem'^;  from  2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  3). 


The  Book  of  Ezra. 

JE  (Verbal    extracts    from  the  Memoirs   of  Ezra;   cf.   above,  ] 

p.  122)  :   VII.  27— VIII.  34.     IX. 

e  (Extracts  from  the   Memoirs  of  Ezra  in  a  revised  form  ;  cf.  | 

above,  p.  122) :  VII.  1-10.     X.  | 


Q  (Extracts  from  written  sources  and  documents  in  the 
original  phraseology;  cf.  above,  p.  122)  :  II.  1-67  (of 
almost  precisely  the  same  tenor  as  Neh.  vii.  6  ff.). 


q  (Extracts  of  the  same  kind  in  a  revised  form :  cf.  above, 
p.  122)  :  I.  1-4.     11.  68—111.  1,  6.     VI.  15. 


Qa  (The  Aramaic  source  in  Ezra,  (3hap.  IV.  ff. ;  cf.  above, 
p.  122):  IV.  8-23.  V.  3.  VI.  14^  (except  the  late  gloss  in 
VI.  12=^).     VII.  11-26. 

qa  (Statements  from  Qa  in  a  revised  form  ;  cf.  above,  p.  122): 
IV.  6,  7. 


Ch  (Chronicler,  the  redactor,    or,    as  the   case   may  be,   the 
compiler  of  the  Historical  Work  we  now  have  as  Ezra, 


246      SURVEY  OP  THE  COMPOSITION  FROM  DIFFERENT  DOCUMENTS 

Neliemiali^  Chronicles ;  as  to  the  rest  Ch  also  stands  in 
those  sections  where  the  Chronicler  has  woven  the  notices 
which  he  may  have  found  extant  into  a  new  representa- 
tion: cf.above,  p.  121  &.):  I.  5-11.  III.  2-5,  7— lY.  5,  24— 
V.  2.     VI.  14'-,  16-22.     YIII.  35,  36. 


The  Book  of  Nehemiah. 

iV  (Yerbal  extracts  from  the  Memoirs  of  Nehemiah  ;  cf.  above, 
p.  122)  :  I.  1— YII.  5  (on  6-69  and  70-73'-^  see  below,  on 
Qand^).  XI.  1,  2,  20-24.  XII.  31,  32,  37-40.  XIII. 
4-31. 


n  (Extracts  from  Nehemiah's  Memoirs  in  a  revised  form ;  see 
above,  p.  122  :  XI.  3-19). 

e  (See  above,  on  Ezra  !)  :  YII.  73^ — X.  40  (amongst  other 
things  due  to  the  Chronicler  is  the  insertion  of 
Nehemiah  and  the  Levites  in  YIII.  9 ;  as  well  as  IX. 
4,  5). 


Q  (See  above,  on  Ezra  !)  :  YII.  6-69   (admitted  by  Nehemiah 
into  his  Memoirs).     XII.   1-26". 


q  (See  above,  on  Ezra  !)  :  YII.  70-73^ 


Ch  (See  above,  on  Ezra  !)  :     XI.  25-36.      XII.  26^'-30,  33-36, 
41_XIII.  3. 


OF  SEVERAL  BOOKS  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.       247 

Later  Additions  to  the  Book  of  Jeremiah. 

(cf.  above,  p.  85):  III.  14-16?  17,  18.  X.  M6.  XV. 
13,  14  (from  XVII.  3,  4).  XVI.  13,  14  (from  XXIII.  7. 
8),  18-21.  XVII.  19-27.  XXI.  11,  12.  XXVII.  7, 
XXIX.  10-15?  16-20.  XXX.  10,  11,  22-24.  XXXL 
38-40.  XXXII.  1-5,  17-23.  XXXIII.  2,  8,  14-26. 
XXXIX.  1,  2,  4-13.  XLVI.  27,  28  (cf.  XXX.  10,  11). 
XLVIII.  47.  L.  1— LI.  58.  LII.  (cf.  2  Kings  xxiv. 
18  ff.). 


INDEX. 


Amos,  50 

Annals  of  the  Kingdom,  71 
Annalist  of  the  Kingdom,  71 
Aramaic  Document  in  the  Book 


of      Ezra, 


Passages 


Aramaic 
Book     of 


]22  ; 

in    the 
Daniel,  139 
Arrangement  of   the   Books  in 


the  Hebrew  Bible,  225 


Balaam-Speeches,  16  i 

Baruch,  84  I 

Blessing  of  Jacob,  15  i 

Blessingof  Moses  (Gen.  xxxiii.),  i 

19 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  7,  8,  29 
Book  of  the  Upright  Ones,  2, 18, 

15 
Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jahweh,  2,  ; 

15 
Bow,  so-called  Song  of  the,  10 

Calendar,  212  ff. 
Chronicler,  the  Work  of,  121  ff. 
Chronicles,  Books  of,  123  ff. 
Chronological  Tables,  167 


Chronology  in  the  Book  of 
Judges,  95 ;  in  the  Books  of 
Kings,  73  f. 

Collections  of  Songs,  2,  3 

Congregational  Psalms,  14; 7 

Cubit,  296 

Daniel,  the  Book  of,  138ff. 

Daric  (coin),  212 

David,  25;  a  Psalmist?  11; 
David-Stories  (Da),  28 

Deborah,  Song  of  (Judges  v. 
2  ff.),  5 

Decalogue,  7,  8 

Deutero-Isaiah,  96 

Deuteronomist,  69,  94  f.,  233  f. 

Deuteronomy,  33,  34,  62  f.,  94  ; 
chap,  v.,  7  ;  xxxii.,  94  ;  xxxiii., 
40 

Dentero-Zechariah,  136  ff. 

Division  of  the  Kingdom,  Con- 
sequences of,  18 

Document  Hypotheses,  older 
and  more  recent  (in  Penta- 
teuch criticism),  32  f. 

Drachme  (coin),  212 

i/- Source  in  the  Pentateuch 
and  Joshua  (ftee  Elohist) 


INDEX. 


249 


Ecclcsiastes,  162  f. 

Elegy   of   David    on    Saul   and 

Jonatlian,  10;  on  Abner,  ll 
Elihu-Speeclies  in  the  Book  of 

Job,  161 
Elijah-Stories,  41 
Elisha-Sfcories,  42 
Elohist  (see  7i;),32  f.,  43  ft".,  22711* 
Epilogue  to  Deuteronomy,  66 
Esther,  Book  of,  130 
Exodus   (see  Moses,  the  Second 

Book) 
Ezekiel,  86  ff. 
Ezra,  106,  118 
Ezra,  Book  of  121, 
Ezra's  Memoirs,  122 

Fragments  Hypothesis,  32 

Genesis    (see    Moses,    the    Fivbt 

Book) 
Gideon-Narratives,  21,  23  ft'. 
Grafian  Hypothesis,  34 

Habakkuk,  74 

Haggai,  103 

Hero- Stories    in    the    Book    of 

Judges,  21 
Hilkiah,  the  Priest,  64 
Historical      Work,      the      Jah- 

wistic,   35  ff.;    the  Jehovistic, 

61 ;  the  Deuteronomistic,  94  ; 

the  final  redaction,  119  f. 
Holiness,  Law  of,  100  f.,  106 
Hosea,  52 

Isaiah,  son  of  Amoz,  63  IF. ;  chap, 
i.,  56  ;  ii.-v.,  56  ;  vi.,  56  ; 
xiii.  f.,  99  ;    XV.  and  xvi.,  50  ; 


xxiv.-xxvii.,  135;  xxxiv.-xxxv., 

99 
/-Source     in      tlic     Pentateuch 

and  Joshua  (see  J  ah  wist) 
Jacob's  l^lessing,  15 
Jahwist,  32,  33  f .,  35  ;    various 

strata  of,  226 
Jehoshaphafc,  Promulgator  of  the 

Book  of  the  Covenant  (?),  31 
Jell  ovist,  61 
Jeremiah,  76;     the     origin      (;f 

tbe   Book,  81  f. ;  additions  to 

the  Book,  85 
Jerusalem- Source  in  the  Second 

Book  of  Samuel,  25 
Job,  the  Book  of,  154 
Joel,  133 

Jonah  ben  Amittai,  134 
Jonah,  the  Book  of,  134 
Josiali,  Purification  of  the  cul- 

tus  under,  63  ff. 
Josliaa,  the   Book   of,  94,    120, 

232;  X.,  12  f.,  2 
Jotbam's     Fable    (Judges     ix., 

8  if.).  ^ 
Judges,  the  Book  of,  21,  45,  94, 
120 

King's  Book,  tlie  great,  70 
Kings,  the  Book  of,  6S,  96,  120  ; 

1  Kings  V.  9,  If.,  13 ;  xx.,  xxii., 

2  Kings  iii.,  vi.  24  if.,  ix,  f.,  42 

Lamentations,  91 
Lamentation  s(Qiuali) -Verse,  92 
Lamech,  Song  of,  3 
Lawbook,  Ezra's.  106,  118 
Legends,      Remnants     of    An- 
cient, 5 

17 


250 


INDEX. 


Length  (measure),  206 
Levites,     according     to     Ezek. 

xliv\,    6,    distinguished    from 

the      Priests,     90 ;      in      the 

Priests'  Code,  117 
Leviticus  (see  Moses,  the   Third 

Book) 

Malachi,  105  f . 

Measures  of  Capacity,  207 

Measures  of  Length,  206 

Micah,  57 

Midrash  on  the  Book  of  Kings, 
127 

Miriam,  Song  of  (Exod.  xv.  21), 
2 

Moab,  Oracle  on  (Isa.  xv.  f.),  50 

Money,  210 

Months,  Names  of,  213 

Moses,  G  fP. ;  the  First  Book  of 
Moses,  226;  iv.  231,  3; 
xiv.,  119;  xlix.  Iff.,  15.  The 
Second  Book  of  Moses,  228  ; 
chap.  XV.,  2 ;  xvii.  14  ff., 
7  ;  XX.  7 ;  xxxiv.  27  if.,  8. 
The  Third  Book  of  Moses, 
230.  The  Fourth  Book  of 
Moses,  231  ;  x.,  35  f.,  3  ; 
xxiii.  f.,  15.  The  Fifth  Book 
of  Moses  (see  Deuteronomy) 

Nahum,  59 
Nathan's  Parable,  12 
Nehemiah,  123 
Nehemiah,  Book  of,  121 
Nehemiah's  Memorabilia,  122  f. 

Obadiah,  132 

Original  Deuteronomy,  63  ff. 


P—See  Priests'  Code 

Parable    of    Nathan     (2     Sara. 

xii.  1,  ff.),  1-2 
Pentateuch,  6,  119,  226  ff. 
Pentateuch     Criticism,    on    the 

History  of,  31 
Poetical  Books,  141 
Poetry,    Popular,     B.emains    of 

Ancient,  1 
Priests'  Code,  or  Priests'   Docu- 
ment, 33,  106 ff.  227  ff. 
Prologue  to  Deuteronomy,   6^) ; 

to     the     Proverbs,    153  ;      to 

Job, 157 
Proper     Names      transliterated 

exactly  from  the  Hebrew,  216 
Prophets,    Close  of   the   Canon 

of,  137 
Prophets,  Mirror,  of  the,  41 
Prophetism,  46  ff. 
Proto-Zechariah,  104 
Proverbs,  Book  of,  151 
Proverbs,  Them  that  speak  in, 

2 
Psalms,  Titles  of,  141  f.;  Number 

of,  141 
Psalter,  141  ff. ;   Origin  of,  143 

Qinah-Verse      (see       Lamenta- 
tions) 

Rod,  207 

Ruth,  Book  of,  129 


Samuel,  the  Books  oP,  95,  120  ; 
1  Sam.  iv.  1  ff.,  40  ;  2  Sam. 
i.  18  ff.,  2;  iii.  33,  11;  xxii. 
and  xxiii.,  1-7,  11 


INDEX. 


251 


Saul-Stories  (/S),  27  ;   (SS),  45 
Septuagint,  13 
Sinai,  Law  of,  102 
Song  of  Songs,  148 
Supplement-Hypothesis  (in 

Pentateuch  Criticism),  32 


Tell  el-Aniarna,  Claj  Tablets 
from,  173 

Ten  Commandments  {see  Deca- 
logue) 

Time,  Computation  of,  212 

Titles  of  the  Psalms,  142 


Ti'ito-lsaiah,  98 

Triumphal   Song  of  them    that 

speak  in  Proverbs  (Num.  xxi. 

27  fP.),  2 

Weights,  208 
Well,  Song  of  the,  2 
Wisdom  Literature,  151 
Writing,  Art  of,  10 

Zechariah,   chaps.   i,-viii. ,   104  ; 

ix.-xiv.,  136  ff. 
Zephaniah,  61 


U.   XORMAN  AND  SON,    PRIMERS.   KLORAI.  STREET,  COVENT  GARDEN,   LU.VDOX. 


Date  Due 

By  6-  ''K 

V 

My  2  i    .: 

^ 

'•"^^-M 

^ 

